Trinity 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 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 good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 83 (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.

Care navigation was used as a point of contact tool and to ensure patients accessed the service most appropriate to their needs. Staff had received care navigation training to support them and followed a detailed care navigation protocol. The primary role of the clinical assessment service (CAS) is that of remote consultation support and included the effective identification of patient need, and supported them to access the appropriate care and treatment to meet this need. The CAS was recognised by the provider as an essential part of the GP Care Wakefield operational delivery process. Remote consultations were undertaken by experienced clinicians who had been trained in remote assessments. Standardised assessment tools were utilised by clinical staff to identify need and care and decide on treatment options. The CAS had specific inclusion criteria which included conditions which were able to be managed remotely such as infections, low level mental health problems, skin conditions and musculoskeletal problems. Conditions such as chest pain, abdominal pain, and dizziness were excluded from the service as these were most likely to need a face-to-face assessment and patients would be directed towards direct appointments with GP Care Wakefield or attendance at accident and emergency departments.

The projects and health checks offered by the service utilised a range of assessments to diagnose conditions. For example, the lung health checks programme used a standardised assessment template/tool to identify patients for follow-up CT scans, and the mining respiratory project utilised spirometry and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) testing to identify patients with conditions such as restrictive lung disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to social prescribers and other support services should they identify other unmet patient needs.

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 and clinical records we saw demonstrated this. For example, the service used standardised clinical templates which were linked to national guidelines.

New guidance and updates to current guidance were shared with staff via a variety of ways. These included emails, the use of a cloud-based communication and collaboration channel, and their monthly staff bulletin. The service also supported staff learning such as by organising learning forums and educational sessions.

Adherence with guidance was assessed via a programme of audits and clinical supervision processes.

The service worked well across teams and other services to support people. They shared assessments of people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people only needed to tell their story once.

The service worked well across teams and with external providers, including the patients’ own GPs, and secondary care to plan and deliver appropriate diagnostic and care services. As part of this work the service had developed effective communication routes with partners and stakeholders. For example, we saw that record sharing was in place across all Wakefield practices allowing both parties to see patient records and entries. When the clinical advice service or wider GP Care Wakefield service had a concern which required a follow-up or recall for additional support, they were able to task the patient’s own GP to undertake this if appropriate.

We saw that the service worked closely with commissioners, partners and other stakeholders to develop projects to enhance local care and tackle identified need. This included services within this assessment such as community health respiratory projects. The mining respiratory project for example saw the service working with 2 local charities as well as engaging with communities to promote participation. It also involved extensive networking with other organisations which included local community providers and welfare groups, and health and wellbeing services such as the stop smoking service.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control, as well as offering guidance to people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The clinical assessment service, respiratory projects, and workplace NHS health checks offered by Conexus Healthcare CIC actively supported a number of national priorities via their activities. This included the early diagnosis of long-term respiratory conditions, the signposting of patients to services such as stop smoking and weight management, and increasing individual and community awareness of health conditions and the opportunities to improve health. Working within their constituent primary care networks, the service could support patients to access wider wellbeing services including social prescribers and health and wellbeing coaches to help them with their specific needs.

The service monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service had developed extensive and effective methodologies to monitor and improve services and outcomes for patients. This included a programme of audits which included audits of consultations and prescribing for clinical staff, call handling, and specific activities such as spirometry. This linked to other quality improvement work including thematic trend analysis for complaints and incidents. We saw that performance and outcomes had management oversight and were subject to frequent reviews. Reviews of audits and records showed that patients who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance.

Patient outcomes for specific services delivered by the service were positive. For example, the clinical assessment service (CAS) undertook 14,260 consultations between March 2026 and August 2026. Of which 39% resulted in prescribing support or GP/advanced nurse practitioner telephone advice, 16.9% booked face-to-face appointments with GP Care Wakefield clinicians at 1 of their 7 sites, and 44.1% being given self-care or referral to another service. The service reported that 73% of patients advised to self-care did not represent to another service within 2 weeks of receiving the advice.

Project and health check performance and outcomes were also strong with the service showing the following:

• From January to March 2026 over 400 workplace NHS health checks had been undertaken
• Lung health check programme – recent data showed that in just over 3 months of operation 2,774 invitations had been sent out to potential participants, with subsequently 1,370 lung health checks being offered with 1,283 being completed (93.6%). These completed checks delivered by the service had a conversion to CT scan rate of 63.5% with 815 CT scans being booked for patients (377 of these had already been carried out by August 2026). Outcomes reported for CT scans undertaken from June 2026 showed that 6% of patients were identified as having pulmonary/serious incidental findings which required urgent action, and 12 having incidental findings which required non-urgent action. The project had an overall aim of undertaking 27,000 patient appointments from April 2026 to March 2030.
• Mining respiratory project – from April 2026 to the time of our assessment the project had led to 37 non-primary care referrals being generated, with 15 patients having received spirometry screening and 13 instances of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) testing. Other outputs included undertaking 9 asthma reviews and 13 other structured respiratory reviews. Outcomes included 2 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) diagnoses and 2 diagnoses of restrictive lung disease. The project also increased community understanding of respiratory illness and treatment and support options.

Key contractual performance indicators were closely monitored by the service and we saw evidence that overall, the service (supported by the actions of the CAS) had exceeded their contractual performance target for urgent care provision achieving 14.8 minutes per 1,000 population against a target of 12.5 minutes per 1,000 population, and 64.2 minutes per 1,000 population for enhanced access against a target of 60 minutes per 1,000 population.

The service told people about their rights around consent, and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

As part of our assessment, we spoke with a range of clinical and non-clinical staff. From these discussions we found that they had a full understanding of consent principles and practices. Staff considered consent issues when providing care to others, and the need to assess the mental capacity of patients to give their consent to care and treatment including referrals on to other services.

We saw that staff had received appropriate training in the requirements of mental capacity legislation including the Mental Capacity Act training. Staff had also received information governance training, and were aware of consent processes for the sharing of patient information and records.