Uni-City Medical Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff did not regularly review people’s care and work with other services to achieve this. This is the first inspection for this practice since its new registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Requires Improvement.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Feedback from people using the practice was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a interpreter to be present. Our remote clinical searches identified clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the assessment of people’s wider health and wellbeing. The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. For example, all patients diagnosed as diabetic had received the appropriate monitoring. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

The practice planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Clinical records, reviewed as part of this inspection, demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance. For example, people who were at risk of diabetes had been recalled to see the diabetic nurse following blood results.

The practice worked well across teams to support people. Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. The practice worked with other practices to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated.

The practice supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The practice supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. We saw the practice had information boards with posters and leaflets for patients, for example, promoting cervical screening awareness.

The practice did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Our remote clinical searches highlighted the practice monitored people’s care and treatment, however this was not done consistently. For example, patients who had a diagnosis of asthma or epilepsy, were not being invited for their annual reviews The practice had not met national targets for screening and childhood immunisations. For example, percentage of children aged 2 who have not received the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine was at 87% which was below the expected target of 95%. National data showed that the uptake of cervical screening was 38.3 % which was significantly below the national target of 80%. The practice confirmed it was undertaking a cervical screening drop-in clinic to increase awareness in the local area. However, the practice did run audits and searches to monitor and improve patients with cardiovascular disease and patients with high cholesterol and not on statins.

The service did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. Our remote clinical searches showed that do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation; however, there was no audited oversight of patients with DNACPRs in place to ensure these were reviewed regularly. Out of the 5 DNACPR records selected to be reviewed as part of this inspection, 3 records were available to view, however 2 should not have been part of the DNACPR list. The provider informed us they would review these and make sure they were placed on the relevant patient’s record. Mental capacity was assessed as also having been completed with the 3 records viewed. The provider had access to an interpreter line for patients who required this service to aid with ensuring they understood the decisions being made.