Broad Street Health 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 regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

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 services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

The provider’s quality improvement approach was well embedded in practice through annual audits, clinical case reviews and regular monitoring.

This service scored 83 (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 service was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. For example, the practice was aware of the needs of the local community and used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present.

We found the provider held registers which were reviewed to prioritise care for their most clinically vulnerable patients. For example, we reviewed a sample of patients with a DNACPR record to consider whether the DNACPR had been prepared and found this had been reviewed and agreed appropriately.

Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. They used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. They were dedicated staff working with the patients who could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

We noted that practice had clear, structured process in place to identify patients with complex or escalating care needs, using a combination of clinical judgement and risk stratification tool such as Accident and Emergency (AE) attendances and input from other health care professionals and carers.

The practice planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

Patients’ care and treatment was monitored in line with current legislation, standards and evidence-based guidance including from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance (NICE). Our remote clinical searches identified that annual reviews and monitoring had been carried out effectively however, a small number of patients were identified having potential misdiagnosis of diabetes. The practice responded promptly and took immediate actions to address this.

The practice always worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared thorough assessments of people’s needs when they moved between different services.

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 services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services. The practice told us, they maintained an anticipatory care register aiming to identify 2% of its population for personalised care planning.

We saw evidence that indicated that multidisciplinary meetings reviewed patients’ palliative care needs, recent cancer diagnosis, safeguarding concerns including frequent attendees to the practice. Actions from the meetings were clearly recorded, shared and escalated to all relevant staff.

The practice supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

The practice used segmentation tools to identify vulnerable patients for proactive care planning and enhanced support. The practice had developed a priority access system for patients with the highest clinical risk.

Staff feedback and evidence demonstrated that social prescribing had been integrated into the care model supporting wider patient needs such as housing, finance, or social isolation.

The practice routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The practice met national targets for screening and immunisations.

The practice conducted audits on medication monitoring to ensure safe prescribing and to confirm appropriate checks had been undertaken for patients.

We noted that the practice undertook an audit to identify and reach out to patients who had not responded to bowel cancer screening invitations in the last 12 months. The audit successfully identified and contacted 115 patients, achieving 99.14% compliance rate, ensuring repeat invitations along with information on the importance of screening was sent to patients.

An audit of 18 patients at the risk of anaphylaxis (risk of severe allergic reaction) showed 100% compliance with guidelines for prescribing at least two adrenaline pens. There audit confirmed there were systems in place to keep prescribing up to date and identified opportunities to further strengthen documentation and annual reviews.

There were also other initiatives such as cytology outreach for underserved populations which included educating patients on the importance of timely monitoring.

Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.

The latest patient survey results indicated that 87%of the responded felt involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment.