Askern 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 with 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 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We found that the service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. For example, patients were rapidly assessed for suitability to be referred to the practice ‘in-house’ suspected cancer clinic.

The service was aware of the needs of the local community.

Staff checked people’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.

The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions.

Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

The National GP Patient Survey results showed that 81% of patients felt that the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last GP appointment. This was below the local (93%) and national (92%) averages.

We found 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. A wide range of regular audits were conducted to help achieve this.

We carried out a series of clinical searches to assess monitoring and care quality for certain long-term conditions. We saw evidence of appropriate monitoring and follow-up across long-term conditions such as hypothyroidism, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. Appropriate monitoring of patients with asthma was mostly appropriate, however, patients were not always followed up in a timely manner following an asthma exacerbation and this was highlighted to the provider.

We carried out a clinical search for patients having a potential missed diagnosis of diabetes. The systems to identify these patients and make sure they were offered the appropriate investigation, treatment and monitoring were mostly effective.

During the assessment, feedback was provided to the provider confirming that no significant concerns regarding patient harm were identified. We identified a small number of low-risk concerns. These were highlighted for the provider to review and action where appropriate. We received an assured timely response from the pharmacist lead to the individual patient queries raised.

Some positive examples were observed and shared, however, there were instances where correspondence or tasks received from external services had not been responded to.

The provider could not demonstrate in all cases, that staff had access to the information needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver care, treatment and support. However, positive examples of access to information were seen during clinical searches.

We found 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. For example, the practice offered services for the elderly (including dementia diagnosis), bereavement care, advanced musculoskeletal health care, healthcare specifically for Travellers and training for hairdressers to refer patients with suspicious skin conditions. In addition, it also offered quarterly well-being cafes in both Mexborough and Askern practices and linked in with community services such as Age Concern, Andy’s Man Club and bereavement and suicide services.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to patients’ health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, patients at risk of developing a long-term condition and those with caring responsibilities. The service reported 9% of their patient list were registered as a carer which was significantly higher than the national average.

Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity. The provider shared unverified information with us that showed 97% of eligible patients over 75 years had had their annual health assessment. They also told us that 70 patients were on the Learning Disability register of which 60 had received a health check review within the past 12 months.

We found the service routinely monitored and had effective systems to monitor clinical outcomes and used findings to drive improvement. Regular audit activity led to measurable changes in care.

From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that patients mostly experienced positive outcomes, as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance.

The service monitored childhood immunisation uptake and used the findings to drive improvement. The most recent data available to CQC covering the period April 2024 to March 2025 showed the service met the World Health Organisation target of 95% for 4 vaccines and was below for the other at 81%. Leaders recognised local challenges to uptake. The practice had a policy to contact patients attending for vaccination appointments the day before to remind them.

We were told that reminders were also sent to patients who did not attend national screening programmes such as breast and bowel screening to try and improve uptake. The latest data available to CQC 2024/2025 showed:

Breast screening coverage: aged 53 to 70 years old: Practice 57.2% England 70.4%

Bowel cancer screening coverage: aged 60 to 74 years old: Practice 69.5% England 71.8%

The service monitored cervical screening uptake and took action to try and improve uptake.

Based on published data from 30/6/2024 the percentage of persons eligible for cervical cancer screening who were screened adequately within 3.5 years for persons aged 25 to 49, and within 5.5 years for persons aged 50 to 64 was below the 80% target at 70.3% and 72.1% respectively. Unverified data provided to us by the provider at the time of the assessment however showed they had achieved above the 80% target.

We found that 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. Consent forms were used where appropriate. For example, minor surgery.