Newington Road Surgery Limited Also known as Newington Road 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 delivered care and treatment in line with current evidence‑based guidance and monitored outcomes effectively.

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.

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. Our remote clinical searches showed that people with long‑term conditions were now being effectively monitored. For example, there was appropriate monitoring for people with asthma who had received 2 or more rescue steroid courses in the last 12 months, patients with diabetes whose latest HbA1c (a blood test that shows long‑term blood sugar control) was above recommended levels, people with hypothyroidism, and patients with chronic kidney disease stages 4 or 5.

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.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

UK Health Security Agency data (2024/25) showed the service met the minimum threshold target for 1 out of 5 childhood immunisation indicators, achieving 90%. The service performed below the minimum threshold target for the remaining 4 indicators, achieving between 87% and 89%.

NHS England data from June 2024 showed the service had achieved a 64% uptake for cervical screening for women aged 25-49 and 69% uptake for women aged 50-64. This was below the 80% national target. The service was aware of these results and carried out regular recall audits, routinely inviting people and holding conversations to explore concerns and offer reassurance.

Unverified data from the service, dated 21 April 2026, showed an improvement in uptake. For example, the service had now achieved 84% and 85% respectively. (Unverified data refers to data that has been provided by the service and has not been published, therefore has not been verified by the data owner, for example, UK Health Security Agency, NHS Digital, NHS England and Improvement).

The service had a programme of targeted quality improvement and used information about care and treatment to drive change. In October 2025, it carried out an audit to assess whether people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were receiving appropriate monitoring. The service reviewed 10 people diagnosed with COPD and found all had thorough and well documented assessments. The service repeated the audit in April 2026 to ensure standards were being maintained and found monitoring and documentation continued to be of a good standard. The service planned to carry out a further audit in 6 months to provide ongoing assurance.

The service also carried out an audit in October 2025 to check whether people with asthma were receiving care in line with national guidance. A sample of 10 people diagnosed with asthma were reviewed and all had received an asthma review in the last 12 months. Necessary information had been documented including inhaler technique, smoking status, asthma control test score, exacerbation history and rescue medication consistently assessed. The service repeated the audit in April 2026 to check whether good practice was being maintained. The audit showed all people they sampled received appropriate monitoring in line with national guidance. However, it also found that for 30% of the people reviewed, smoking status had not been recorded in their notes. This could reduce opportunities to offer support or improve care. As a result, the service shared learning with staff, reinforced the importance of completing all parts of the review, and planned to repeat the audit in 6 months to ensure improvements were sustained.

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.