Gill Medical Practice

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 in December 2015, we rated this key question as Good.

At this assessment in August 2026, the rating remains the same because we found no issues with the service providing effective care and treatment.

This service scored 67 (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. Feedback from people using the service was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. 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 checkedpeople’s health,care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. However, the documentation of the care plans needed to be reviewed to ensure all sections of the templates were completed. The provider had effective systems to identify people with previouslyundiagnosed conditions. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber. The service created a resource pack for patients with neurodiversity to support them in getting the right assessment of their needs with a provider of their choice.

The service planned and delivered people’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. 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.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure 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 to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services. The service had regular multi-disciplinary meetings to discuss and review cases related to the patients.

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 with caring responsibilities were offered support and flu vaccinations including signposting to other relevant support services. There was a register for patients with caring responsibilities which was monitored and reviewed regularly. There was a focus on identifying risks to patients’ health and working to address them.

The service 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. While the practice had not met the national targets for screening and immunisations, there were audits completed to identify eligible patients for these health offers. There was a programme of targeted recalls using motivational interviewing techniques to help patients who were undecided to take up the cervical screening. The percentage of women aged 25-49 who had an adequate cervical screening test was 57.5% which was below the 80% national target. The percentage of women aged 50-64 who had an adequate cervical screening test was 73.7% which was below the 80% national target.Clinicians from similar cultural backgrounds spoke to the patients with concerns to understand their fears and offer explanations in ways the patients could understand. As a result of this approach and audit of patients eligible for cervical screening, 88 patients out of 342 identified patients had not had their cervical screening completed the screening. Fourteen of the results were abnormal such as dyskaryosis (changes in the cells of the cervix) and were later sent for further examination and appropriate clinical care. The practice as a result of this outcome had developed an education programme to increase the awareness of the benefits of these health offers.

The details of the targeted recall included the following: 342 patients were identified.

• 88 out of 342 (1 in 4) had their cervical screening because of the audit and recall.
• 14 out 88 (1 in 6) of the women had abnormal results and required appropriate follow-up
• Audit of the abnormal results showed 7 HPV positive without documented dyskaryosis (abnormal changes in the cells of the cervix)
• 5 results had borderline or low-grade cervical cell changes
• 2 results showed high grade dyskaryosis
• The patients were followed up appropriately.

The service was below the target uptake rates (90%) in all childhood immunisations categories. The provider was achieving childhood immunisation uptake rates of 62.2% – 63.4% for children aged 2 and 57.3% for children aged 5. The service was achieving immunisation uptake for children aged 1 (59.0%) and MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) uptake for children aged 2 (MMR one dose category) was 65.9%. A recall system was in place to engage patients who had not responded to health interventions, providing education on the associated health benefits. However, the impact of the recall on the uptake of immunisations was yet to be known.

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. The service completed audits of the DNACPR decisions and forms to ensure correct documentation for all the patients in this category. However, our review of DNACPR records showed that there was a need for best interest meetings and decisions to be made where a patient did not have capacity and no appointed guardian to act on their behalf. There was a need for more multidisciplinary team involvement when recording these decisions. The practice informed us that they process of DNACPRs will be reviewed and enhanced for the future.