South Saxon House 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 75 (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 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.
The service had introduced a carers’ champion to better support those with caring responsibilities and a care co-ordinator to support the coordination of annual reviews for people with long term conditions.
Staff identified risks to people’s health and supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health. The service made use of an NHS approved digital social prescribing platform which was integrated to the clinical system, to signpost people to community-based support services. These included services for smoking cessation, weight loss support and health and well-being advice. Referrals to services were recorded in people’s individual records so this could be followed up at future appointments.
A digital waiting room board provided people with a variety of information and signposted to additional services. These focussed on diabetes, lifestyle changes, cancer screening, immunisations, support for young carers, GDPR, menopause and use of antibiotics. Additionally, the service supported seasonal campaigns led by other organisations such as drink-driving campaigns to help promote public safety.
People we spoke to as part of our assessment believed the service showed interest in improving their health. Staff provided examples of how care was tailored to people’s individual needs to support them in managing their health conditions by considering specific barriers that may impact treatment compliance. For example, they shared how they provided a person-centred approach to an individual living with diabetes who was not complying to their treatment plan. In identifying the underlying reasons for this, they were able to provide one to one education and support to improve understanding and engagement.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive, consistent, and met the expectations of people themselves.
The service exceeded national targets across all 5 indicators for the uptake of childhood immunisations. Performance ranged from 91.4% to 100% against the national target of 90%.
The service achieved 75% uptake for cervical screening of women aged 25 to 49 years. This was below the national target of 80%. The service told us that a period of staff absence contributed to a decline in screening uptake for this cohort. During this time, people were signposted to receive screening tests at other services in the primary care network. At the time of our assessment the service was actively inviting eligible women to attend for screening.
We reviewed findings from a 2-cycle audit completed by the service reviewing the prescribing of antimicrobial medicines. The audit demonstrated positive improvement in outcomes for people who used the service.
The service shared with us a recent audit conducted by the Integrated Care Board in 2026 which looked at the service’s performance against national recommended processes for the management of diabetes. The audit identified the service achieved 83% compliance which was compared to a PCN average of 69% and a national average of 58%. The service told us they had achieved this through personal follow-up calls to people with high HbA1c (a measurement of blood sugar levels) and the early start of medicines where clinically appropriate.
The service regularly engaged in multidisciplinary meetings at service, PCN and neighbourhood levels. Meeting minutes demonstrated a collaborative and holistic approach to supporting people’s health needs.
 

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.