Blossom Health Gosport

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 practice since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

This service scored 71 (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.

Reception staff used digital flags in the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present. Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. The provider had systems to identify people with undiagnosed conditions. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber via the primary care network.

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. A remote review of the patient record system showed that patients generally received appropriate long-term condition reviews. Patients with long-term conditions were offered an effective annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met. For patients with the most complex needs, the GPs worked with other health and care professionals to deliver a coordinated package of care.

The practice worked well across teams and services 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 services ensuring continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

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.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to patients’ health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, patients at risk of developing a long-term condition and those with caring responsibilities. The practice had recently introduced a GP assistant to increase their capacity by completing administrative tasks and some basic clinical duties. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

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

The practice was below national targets for cervical screening. The practice was aware of this and had introduced a recall system to ensure patients were contacted to attend screening appointments. The practice shared unverified data demonstrating an improvement in the percentage of women attending these appointments. The practice was below national targets for childhood immunisations, and took actions to improve this. For example, an admin lead proactively followed up appointments that had been missed.

The practice told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

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. However, we noted there was a lack of evidence to demonstrate a review of DNACPR forms at frequent intervals for two patients. We raised this with the practice and they immediately looked at how to best implement this process to ensure that all patients with a DNACPR in place received regular reviews of their condition and/or wishes.