Faircross Health 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as Inadequate because systems and processes to support patients’ healthcare needs were not robust. The practice did not work effectively with secondary care services, particularly in relation to patient referrals. There was also no assurance that staff had the necessary skills and competencies to carry out their roles effectively, and consultation reviews were not being undertaken. Since then, the service has changed provider and these issues were rectified. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good.

This service scored 79 (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.

Reception 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. This was reflected in the 2025 National GP Patient Survey, in which 80% of respondents stated their needs were met during their last general practice appointment.

Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions.

Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

Staff planned and delivered people’s care 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, and patients with long-term conditions were being appropriately monitored and managed.

Education sessions were available in-house and there was a system for senior nurses to regularly meet with the nursing team for one to ones and group meetings as well as appraisals and records reviews.

When reviewing the services clinical record system, we found the workflow for managing clinical correspondence within the clinical record system were reviewed and up to date.

Staff worked well across teams and services to support people. They tried to ensure 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 practice worked with other services including the Primary Care Network and other local practices to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

Staff supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to fully 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.

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.

As such, the practice demonstrated outstanding initiative and commitment to improving access and tackling health inequalities by organising a series of community outreach clinics across the borough, open to all people in the borough including those not registered with a GP or with no fixed abode. These multidisciplinary events, attended by over 11,559 people and involving GPs, nurses, physiotherapists, talking therapists, social prescribers, social services and carers’ charities, provided holistic health checks, long-term condition reviews and on-the-day registrations, with 74% of attendees reporting improved physical and mental wellbeing and 48% attending because they were unable to access their own GP.

Staff routinely monitored people’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 people themselves.

The practice completed numerous two-cycle audits to find ways to improve the quality of patient care. For example, the practice carried out audits looking at their antibiotic prescribing habits, which found they were prescribing in line with national guidelines.

The practice met the national targets for childhood immunisations and met the national target for cervical screening for the older age group and were close to meeting this for the younger target age group. We saw an action plan to improve the uptake for cervical screening and a revised protocol to help the practice achieve this.

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 guidelines.

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. There were systems in place to ensure that DNACPR records would be reviewed at least once annually.