Pringle Street 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 monitored people’s care and treatment and supported them to live healthier lives. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The service always 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 supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity. They regularly collected data on the smoking status and weight of patients so they could be referred to local services to support them.

The service worked closely with a local wellbeing service, and information was available in their waiting room and on their website. Information was displayed in more than one language to meet the needs of the practice population. This included information about local support groups and pharmacies that participated in smoking cessation initiatives. Leaflets in other languages were also readily available.

The service encouraged people to increase their activity by promoting local initiatives. These included family-friendly trails in 4 parks in the area with different themes. These were accessible for people using prams or wheelchairs. The service looked at different ways to manage the health of the patient population. They recognised that improving activity had a positive effect on mental and physical well-being and wanted to change the narrative to make activity more accessible for their patients. The service had identified that the street where the surgery was located was exactly half a mile long. A sensitive engagement with the cultural needs of their patients led to an original initiative called the Pringle Street Mile, encouraging patients to walk up and down the street and have a step-monitoring app to monitor their progress. They told us they were looking at ways to formalise this, ensuring patient confidentiality was maintained, so they would be able to evidence health and fitness was being improved.

As well as having a social prescriber, the service carried out holistic health assessments on patients. These looked at wider health implications, such as checking if people were up to date with eye tests or had a working smoke alarm. They found this was a good way to identify people who required additional support at an early stage so relevant care could be provided. The Integrated Care Board (ICB) had asked them to share this approach with other practices in the area due to its success.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They maximised the outcomes and met the expectations of people themselves.

The service met the minimum level for 3 of the 4 childhood vaccination targets and exceeded 1 target. The provider said there was a lot of vaccine hesitancy in the area, but they always followed up when a parent declined a vaccination for their child. This included a face-to-face discussion with the nurse, speaking in their own language, and then a conversation with a GP in their own language if required. They had leaflets explaining the benefits of vaccinations in the languages spoken by the majority of patients.

The service had not met the target for cervical screening. The latest published data showed that 59.1% of 25 to 49 year olds and 70% of 50 to 64 year olds had been adequately screened, against a target for both of 80%. The service provided their up-to-date unverified data showing an increase to 73% of 25 to 49 year olds and 87% of 50 to 64 year olds. They told us that there was some cultural hesitancy, so they promoted cervical screening at every opportunity, making sure the benefits were explained to patients in a language they understood. To improve opportunistic screening, 2 of the GP partners were smear takers, which could avoid a 2nd appointment being made if a patient was already attending the practice. The nurse also screened opportunistically. They could refer patients to a nearby hub that offered weekend appointments, which was beneficial to patients who worked. There was also a ‘smear bus’ initiative in the area where patients could attend a drop-in mobile surgery that the practice promoted.

The service had a programme of regular clinical audits, which had the input of a GP partner, and these were repeated regularly. The audits we saw showed improvements were made.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.