Essex Way 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

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. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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.

The service 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. 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 translator to be present. The service also provided face to face appointments and offered remote consultations where suitable.

The service considered the needs of its local population when planning and delivering care. This included providing longer appointments and making appropriate adjustments for people with mobility or communication needs. Wheelchair access was available, and individual needs were considered when arranging appointments.

The service had systems to identify and monitor people at risk of developing or living with long term conditions. Clinical searches and recall systems were used to identify people requiring reviews and monitoring. The service provided additional clinical sessions, including dedicated clinics where appropriate to support the management of long-term conditions such as diabetes.

People with caring or social needs were supported through referral to the Primary Care Network (PCN) social prescribing service, where appropriate and with the individuals consent. Staff could also support people with practical needs, including signposting to appropriate services and support.

Clinical staff used templates and structured reviews to support the assessment of people’s wider health and wellbeing needs. The provider also had systems to identify people who may have previously undiagnosed conditions and arranged appropriate follow-up.

The service 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.

Care home representatives and people we received feedback from were positive in relation to the clinical care and medication reviews provided through the Primary Care Network (PCN) and clinical staff at the service.

Clinicians maintained appraisals and mandatory learning, and NICE guidance updates were reviewed through practice meetings. Clinical searches, alerts and recall systems were used to identify people requiring monitoring, a review or follow- up. The provider had systems in place to ensure staff kept up to date with evidence based guidance and legislation.

As part of our assessment, we conducted a detailed review of people’s care records. These demonstrated that care and treatment were delivered in line with current national guidance and best practice, helping to ensure people received safe and effective care. Our clinical searches showed effective arrangements were in place for people prescribed medicines which required additional monitoring.

Established systems were in place to support evidence- based care with identified areas to continue improvement.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. People gave positive feedback about how the reception team identified who the right person was for people to see. Representatives from care homes gave positive examples of how they worked together with staff.

Staff worked well across many teams and services to support people. This helped to reduce duplication, prevent delays in treatment and provided people with continuity. For example, for people with palliative care and end of life needs. Some staff were multiskilled and worked flexibly in response to peak times of demand from people using the service, and to minimise the impact of unexpected staff absence.

People gave positive feedback about how the reception team identified who the right person was for people to see. Representatives from care homes gave positive examples of how they worked together with staff. Partner agencies gave positive feedback regarding how staff worked together with them. Staff worked well acrossmany teams and services to support people. This helped to reduce duplication, prevent delays in treatment and provided people with continuity. For example, for people with palliative care and end of life needs. Some staff were multiskilled and worked flexibly in response to peak times of demand from people using the service, and to minimise the impact of unexpected staff absence.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing and encouraged people to live healthier lives, taking account of individual needs and circumstances.

Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health including stopping smoking and tackling obesity. The service promoted national screening and vaccination programmes and provided information to support people with arrangements for results to be shared with reception and reviewed by a clinician where required. A range of information was available in the waiting room area and on the service’s website which signposted people to information and local and national support groups to encourage healthier living.

The service had a self-testing blood pressure machine in the waiting room. People were advised to share their results with staff at reception and arrangements were in place for results to be reviewed by a clinician if necessary.

The service made weight management referrals and staff we spoke with informed us that the local authority offered free swimming sessions with a monthly pass for swimming and gym. Staff informed us that they strived to share this information with those who may benefit and wish to use the services to help support wellbeing.

The service was veteran friendly and provided information and signposting to relevant support. Information about screening programmes such as cervical, breast screening and vaccination clinics were also available. People could access appointments during extended hours including evening and weekend appointments, with both pre-booked and same day appointments available. Information about how to access services and raise concerns were displayed in the waiting area.

The service 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 provider met national targets for screening and immunisations. The service performed better than the national average for breast and bowel cancer screening. Childhood immunisation rates met all national targets and exceeded where childrenaged 1 had completed their primary course of immunisations. Cervical screening uptake was above the 80% target in both the 25 to 49 and 50 to 64 age groups.

From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence based clinical guidance.

The service 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.

Clinicians told us they always obtained consent from people, and they recorded this on the clinical system. Posters were displayed at the service, and information was on their website and the service leaflet to inform people that a chaperone was available if needed.