Ashcroft 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 patients in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed patient’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

At our last inspection, we rated this key question as good. At this inspection, 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 practice made sure patients’ care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Clinical searches on the patient records system identified patients were receiving the assessments and monitoring required to ensure effective care planning.

Feedback from people using the practice was positive. Patients felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. The results of the National GP Patient Survey 2026 were in line with the national and local averages.For example, 95% of respondents felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment, compared to 93% locally and 92% nationally. Also, 93% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment, compared to 90% locally and nationally.

Annual health checks were offered to patients with learning disabilities and there were 25 patients on the learning disability register. Of those 25 patients, 92% of patients had their annual health check carried out in 2025/2026.

Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Staff told us they prioritised patients who were clinically vulnerable to ensure their needs were assessed and any immediate care and treatment was delivered. 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 patient’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 practice planned and delivered patient’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.

From our clinical searches we identified patients were delivered care in line with evidence-based guidance. We found patients with long‑term conditions were monitored appropriately. Patients received regular diabetes reviews in line with recommended guidance. There were appropriate recall and follow-up systems in place, and reviews were clearly documented in the clinical records.

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

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver patient’s care, treatment, and support.

The practice told us they engaged regularly with local Primary Care Network (PCN), where they collaborated on shared service delivery and quality improvement initiatives.

The practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care and the safeguarding lead held regular meetings with health visitors where concerns were shared. Feedback from other health services was positive about the practice and showed positive relationships and information sharing between services.

The practice supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The practice supported patients 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. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity. We observed health promotion materials were available in the practice waiting room.

The results of the National GP Patient Survey 2026 were in line with the national and local averages.For example, 71% of respondents said they had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses, compared with 72% locally and 70% nationally.

The practice routinely monitored patient’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 patients themselves.

The practice had a programme of quality improvement activity which included carrying out audits to review the effectiveness and appropriateness of care or treatment provided. For example, the practice carried out a 2-cycled audit in March 2026 and May 2026 to review the overall performance in monitoring patients prescribed medicines used to treat chronic inflammatory and autoimmune conditions. The audits showed a reduction in patients overdue for medication monitoring, which indicated an improvement. Overall, the findings demonstrated patient monitoring was well-maintained.

Published and verified data by UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) from April 2024 to March 2025 showed the practice met all 5 child immunisation targets.

At the time of this inspection, the published and verified data by NHS England for cervical screening uptake was from June 2024 and showed the practice was not meeting the national uptake target of 80%. The practice provided evidence of more recent, unverified data, which showed 82% of eligible people aged 25 to 49, and 85% of those aged 50 to 64, had taken up the offer of cervical screening as of May 2026.

The practice had a dedicated staff member in place to review and make contact with patients eligible for cervical screening to offer them an appointment.

Staff we spoke to understood consent and legislation related to consent. All clinical staff were up to date with the Mental Capacity Act training. However, we found there was no evidence in the patient notes that consent had been obtained. For example, we reviewed 2 patient records following attendance at cervical screening appointments and consent had not been recorded for either patient.

These concerns were highlighted to the practice who raised them at a clinical meeting after the inspection and sent us meeting minutes to evidence this.