Archived: Abbey Medical 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.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. The practice 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.

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

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 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.

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 any other reasonable adjustments, ensuring these are considered when planning and delivering care.

Our clinical searches indicated that the provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. Staff could refer people with social needs to a social prescriber, who worked with the practice one day a week through the primary care network.

The practice held registers which were reviewed to prioritise care for their most clinically vulnerable patients. For example, we reviewed a sample of patients with a Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) record and found this had been reviewed and agreed appropriately.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Clinical records we reviewed, demonstrated care was provided 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. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance. We found patients with long-term conditions were being offered a structured annual review to check their health and medicines needs were met. The remote clinical searches that we undertook of the practice’s clinical records system showed the monitoring of patients was in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations. We found 2 patients who had been prescribed multiple courses of rescue steroids and these were not followed up in an appropriate timeframe following their acute exacerbation of asthma. However, the provider was responsive and promptly developed a standard operating procedures to address and support improvement in patient care.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care and treatment. The practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care. Regular meetings were held with multi-disciplinary teams to ensure care was co-ordinated effectively.

Our remote access of the practice system indicated patient test results had been filed and actioned in a timely way.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence and control. They 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. For example, the practice had worked on a project which aimed at early detection of prostate cancer in men with a family history. Over 200 patients were invited and out of those 15 were referred to two-week referral pathway. The project resulted in supporting early cancer detection, engagement and raising awareness among high-risk patients.

During the onsite inspection we saw patients and visitors to the practice had access to information in the form of notice boards and leaflets in the reception area.

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.

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.