Earls Barton 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 appropriate advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed care in partnership with other services. They ensured people understood their care and treatment so they could give informed consent. Where people lacked capacity, staff involved those important to them in making decisions in their best interests. This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as good.

This service scored 62 (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 were effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs in partnership with them. The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard. Information was available in different languages on the website, interpretation services were offered, and a hearing loop was in place to support people with hearing impairments. According to the latest National GP Patient Survey, 89.3% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last GP appointment, and 89.2% felt the health professionals they saw had all the information they needed. Both results were below the national average of 92.5% and 91.2%. Feedback received directly by the CQC indicated that patients did not feel confident staff understood their individual needs. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community, and patient records were coded to highlight specific requirements, such as the need for longer appointments or translation support. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber within the primary care network.

As part of the clinical searches, we reviewed clinical records to assess if care and treatment was delivered in line with best practice. Our findings from the clinical searches show that there was not an effective process in place for recording and sharing medicine safety alerts. For example, we identified a total of 5 patients that were prescribed mirabegron (a medicine that eases the symptoms of an overactive bladder). We reviewed the 5 patients and found that all 5 patients did not have their blood pressure monitoring up to date. There were systems in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. We found that staff worked collaboratively to provide care. However, there were areas where teamwork and communication could be strengthened. For example, staff feedback received by CQC indicated that not all staff felt adequately supported in their roles, and some reported limited communication between different teams within the practice. The practice had recently joined a primary care network, and engagement and joint working with other practices within the network were still developing. While staff demonstrated commitment to providing safe and effective care, the lack of consistent support and structured collaboration limited opportunities for shared learning and integrated working across teams.

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. Patients were encouraged to take an active role in reviewing their own health and wellbeing so they would recognise changes to their health and wellbeing. The social prescriber assisted patients by encouraging them to take an active role in reviewing their own health and wellbeing. Health promotion material was observed in the reception area, with information supporting patients to stop smoking, encourage cancer screening and ways to tackle obesity.

Our remote clinical searches identified some people had not been monitored appropriately. For example, our clinical record searches reviewed the number of patients with hypothyroidism who had not had a thyroid function test (TFT) monitoring within 18 months. We identified a total of 16 patients who did not have a thyroid function test (TFT) monitoring within 18 months. We reviewed a random sample of 5 patients records and found that all 5 patients were prescribed thyroxine between May 2025 and July 2025 without having the appropriate blood test monitoring beforehand.
Following this being identified, the service told us they had reviewed the people who required further monitoring and invited them in for review. At the time of our assessment, the latest published information from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) showed that the practice did not meet the national target for the number of children immunised against various infectious childhood diseases such as children aged 5 who should have received immunisations for measles, mumps and rubella. The practice had completed 90.5% of these immunisations in comparison to the expected World Health Organisation target of 95%. The latest published information from NHS Digital showed the practice’s uptake of cervical cancer screening was below the 80% national target and was observed as 72.8%. 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.