Prestbury 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 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 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 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.

Results from the National Patient Survey showed that 88% of respondents reported they felt their needs were met during their last appointment. This was below the national average (90%) and in line with the local average (88%).

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.

Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

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.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Staff told us they were given protected time for reviewing new guidance and best practice.

The service demonstrated a good connection with specialist care, such as diabetic consultants, who supported and ensured a consistent and evidence-based treatment for people

We reviewed the management of patients with long‑term conditions. For patients diagnosed with diabetes (type 1 and type 2), 133 out of 1,199 had an HbA1c result above 75 mmol/mol. A haemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) test is a blood test that shows your average level of blood glucose over time. The sample of records showed evidence of appropriate follow-up, review, and advice.

The service had lead clinicians for common medical conditions who monitored trends, collaborated with specialist teams and were able to provide focused education sessions for all the team.

Clinicians, including trainee GPs, were encouraged to discuss, learn and share information within the team to support best practice when caring for people.

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. The service worked with other services to ensure continuity of care.Staff demonstrated how different roles supported each other to improve peoples care and we saw evidence of integrated processes to ensure an effective outcome.

The service was a key member of the Primary Care Network (PCN) supporting the development of roles such as social prescribers and the health and well-being team. Feedback from partner organisations working with the service was positive and demonstrated supportive, professional, and caring working relationships with both other services and the people they supported.

The service attended multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings and demonstrated how information was shared and supported patient care, such as palliative care patients who required support from various services.

The Patient Participation Group (PPG) was active and well attended, meetings occurred regularly and feedback from members of the group shared that the service supported the group, listened to feedback and worked well together.

The service 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.

Results from the National Patient Survey showed that 67% of respondents reported they had received enough support from local services or organisations in the previous 12 months to help manage their long‑term conditions or illnesses. This was slightly below with the national average (69%) and above the local average (64%).

Patient feedback indicated that people felt their health and symptoms had improved with support from the service. They also reported that they understood their options for accessing additional support.

The Patient Participation Group (PPG) organised health information events that were supported by the service to help promote improved health outcomes. For example, a summer fete was held, which included a variety of health information displays as well as providing an opportunity for the PPG to raise funds.

The PCN health and wellbeing team arranged walks around the local park which were very well attended. We saw health awareness initiatives and local charities being supported by the service, with notice boards and electronic visual aids to promote better understanding of medical conditions and cancer awareness.

The provider had processes to monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. However, they did not always ensure outcomes were positive and consistent or met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service demonstrated an understanding of the community and the challenges of engaging with under-represented groups. The service did not meet all national targets for cervical screening and childhood immunisations. Data from the UK Health Security Agency states that the service had achieved the minimum targets for children’s immunisations, except for children aged 5 receiving 2 doses of the measles, mumps and rubella immunisations, which was at 87.5% with a minimum target of 90%. The service was taking part in the Black Country Integrated Care Board (ICB) Childhood Immunisation Project. The provider shared unverified data which indicated that participation in the project, alongside the service’s ongoing efforts to promote vaccination, had contributed to an increase in the uptake of childhood immunisations.

Data from NHS England showed 71% of eligible women between the ages of 50 to 64 years old had an adequate screening test, which was below the expected minimal target of 80% and for women between the ages of 25 to 49 was 66.3% which was significantly below the target of 80%.

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.

Discussions and decisions were documented in the sample of records we reviewed, and patient feedback was that they were consulted in decisions and they were asked for consent before treatment began.