Croft Hall Medical Practice

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 have rated the practice as Requires improvement for providing effective services because:

People’s needs were not fully assessed and continuity of care was not promoted by the practice. Care records were not completed fully to show what care and treatment people needed and tasks associated with care and treatment were not always actioned. Regular reviews of people’s long term conditions in line with national guidance were not consistently carried out.

Staff meetings were limited and were not recorded to show how staff worked together to meet people’s needs and collaborate on care and treatment.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People could not be confident that their needs would be assessed and care and treatment would be provided to meet their needs. The practice relied on regular locums’ staff to provide care and treatment, but there were no overarching monitoring systems to ensure that continuity of care was promoted.

Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews, but these did not fully support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing, as records did not always provide sufficient detail.

Information from complaint documents received from the practice showed that on 2 occasions people had not received timely care and treatment and required admitting to hospital due a deterioration in their condition. Information from complaints showed that there was a lack of action in responding to people’s presenting symptoms. For example, 1 person was informed that a specimen was needed before treatment could commence. The person had been unwell for 5 days before they were able to be seen by a GP. They became more unwell and attended hospital where they were admitted for treatment.. Another person had explained their symptoms to a GP who ordered a blood test for diabetes, but did not carry out a finger prick test for blood sugar levels. The person became unwell while waiting for their blood test and went to AE, where they were admitted to hospital.

Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Digital flags were placed on care records to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present.

The provider did not have effective systems to identify people at risk of conditions, such as diabetes. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.( A member of staff who connects patients to non-clinical community-based services and activities that address their social, emotional, and practical needs, to improve their health and wellbeing.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Clinical templates based on current guidance were used to record care and treatment. However, clinical records did not fully demonstrate care was provided in line with current guidance. When reviewing peoples records we found the templates were not completed fully and tasks were not flagged for action.

We requested copies of clinical and non-clinical meeting minutes held at the practice and found that there had not been any meetings since May 2024. Staff informed us that there were daily huddles and meetings during protected learning time each month. However, the provider was unable to demonstrate that these had occurred, as no records of the meetings had been maintained.

Waiting areas in the practice had information on wellbeing and support available for people. This included bereavement support, support with mental health and living with a long term condition. This information was also available on the practice website. There were designated staff who supported people to access support in the community. People who used the service were offered vaccinations in line with national guidance. For example older people were offered shingles and pneumonia vaccination.

There were shortfalls in promoting optimal care for people who used the service. Results from clinical searches undertaken on 13 March 2025 showed: Annual reviews for diabetes had not been carried out. After the clinical searches were completed the practice contacted people to arrange appointments and blood tests as needed.

There was no overall programme of targeted quality improvement in place to use information about care and treatment to improve practice. Information on clinical audits was requested to show how the practice monitored and improved outcomes foe people. We were provided with information on audits of clinical records, which looked at the quality of what had been written in patient records.

People were told about their rights around consent. Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. Staff told us how they would assess a person’s capacity to make a decision.