The Medic Care Surgery

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

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving between services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those family members/advocates important to people, and took decisions in people’s best interests where the person did not have capacity.

Clinical staff received formal and regular support or recorded supervisions on their practise to ensure their decisions were reflective of national legislation.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us how patients were asked when they registered with the practice and/or during consultations their preferred method of communication and if they require support. They considered peoples wider health, care and well-being needs and worked with partners to support them to access appropriate services-.

There were systems and processes in place to assess, prioritise and review people’s care. Non clinician staff had been trained, received guidance or supervision to assist them to triage patients effectively. A duty doctor was always available to staff to speak with and obtain advice and guidance.

Patient records were appropriately coded and flagged to alert staff to individual needs and preferences. Vulnerable groups were proactively invited for health checks, such as carers and those with long term health conditions.

Clinical staff received support and supervision from experienced clinicians to ensure their decisions were reflective of national legislation, evidence-based good practice and required standards.

There were established and effective systems in place to identify, share and embed best practice. Audits had been conducted on administrative processes such as the timeliness of cancer referrals or clinical processes such as safe prescribing. For example, the clinical meeting minutes from May 2025 included improvements to their management of chronic kidney disease and the reduction of antibiotic prescribing.

Regular discussions and formal meetings were held with staff to discuss clinical practice, changes to ways of working and systems and processes for clinical referrals and review of results. Staff updated one another and management on their progress.

Staff worked effectively across teams and services to support people. Staff had access to the information they need to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support. We found clinical records were detailed and regarding assessments and contained supporting rationales for actions taken. There were established and effective systems in place to ensure the timely and appropriate management of referrals. Meetings were held with partner services to support people to access and/or move between services.

Staff supported people to manage their health and wellbeing so they can maximise their independence, choice and control. People were invited and supported to be involved in regularly reviewing their health and wellbeing needs where appropriate and necessary. People were encouraged and supported to regularly monitor their health, including attending health assessments and checks where appropriate with health and care professionals. Staff signposted people and provided advice and guidance to support people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff told us they routinely monitor people’s care, booking follow up consultations and requesting additional interventions such as blood tests to continuously improve people’s health outcomes.

There were established and effective systems in place to identify and monitor people’s outcomes. This was achieved through formal quality outcome frameworks used by local commissioners of healthcare to inform conversations regarding performance. Whilst others were audits chosen and conducted by the practice in response to health priorities or safety concerns to understand and improve clinical performance. For example, the clinical meeting minutes from May 2025 included discussions on improving their management of diabetes. They were implementing a new triage search which will recall patients more frequently based on their clinical needs and changed the clinical template used by staff relating to bloods to ensure it reflected best practice guidance.

We found established systems were in place to ensure pathology results were reviewed and actioned in a timely manner.

The practice had established policies and procedures in place to ensure staff knew and observed best practice when recording and delivering care. Staff understood and assessed child under 16 years were Gillick competent. Thereby able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge.

Consent was appropriately obtained or documented prior to administer vaccinations to vulnerable people. Staff did ensure best interest decisions were appropriately made and recorded for people who lacked capacity to make decisions.