Dr Telesilla Gueret Wardle Also known as The Christchurch Hall 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, we focused on 2 quality statements relating to the key question Effective: Supporting people to live healthier lives and Monitoring and improving outcomes.

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 practice supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. It supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health. The practice website had links providing patients with information on healthy living, with guidance relating to diet and exercise; tobacco, alcohol and substance dependence; and mental health issues. We saw evidence of patients recorded as smokers being called in for monitoring. The practice carried out annual health checks for patients with a learning disability and for those with severe mental illness. The practice performance for both was above the national averages.

Staff focused on identifying risks to people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and those with caring responsibilities. The practice had identified 26 people with caring responsibilities (approximately 1% of registered patients) and provided them with appropriate support. Information for carers was available in the patient waiting area and via the practice website, with signposting to support organisations. Services such as health and wellbeing checks were offered to carers. A social prescriber was shared with the other practices in the primary care network (PCN).

The practice showed us evidence of its participation in local support programmes being conducted within the PCN, NHS preventative programmes and community health initiatives. We saw the practice had run an engagement event for people with frailty and/or dementia and their carers, which received positive feedback from the attendees. The practice had a range of policies, setting out contact details for staff to refer patients and, in some cases, for patients to self-refer to various support services. These included healthcare issues relating to autism, drug and alcohol use, learning disability, mental health, older people and services for children and young people. This showed a strong commitment to preventative care, population health management and to reducing health inequalities in the local area. They were planned to ensure an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to care delivery, ensuring patients received timely access to appropriate services and holistic support.

The practice routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve. It ensured outcomes were positive, consistent and met the expectations of people themselves.

Published verified data for the year 2024/25 showed the number of new cancer cases treated resulting from an urgent suspected cancer referral was in line with the national average.

We reviewed the most recent data for childhood immunisations published by the UK Health Security Agency (1/4/2024 to 31/3/2025). The practice had not met the minimum 90% target for the 5 childhood immunisation indicators, achieving between 73% and 88% uptake. However, we noted the 5 cohorts were very small. This meant the percentage results were adversely impacted by a few families not engaging with the immunisation programme. Low uptake of immunisations is a known trend, particularly in London.

The practice was aware of the issue and was actively taking measures to improve uptake. Its website included a link to a series of information videos in various languages informing patients and promoting childhood immunisations. Staff operated a proactive call and recall process, by phone and using text messages, and engaged with parents opportunistically during each routine contact to discuss and propose immunisation appointments for the children. The practice liaised with health visitors and school nursing teams to share information and co-ordinate follow ups.

We reviewed the practice’s performance in relation to the cervical screening programme. The latest available published data showed uptake (as of June 2024) was below the programme standard. This requires 80% of eligible women to have adequate screening test within the previous three and a half years. Low screening rates are another recognised trend, particularly in London. The data showed the practice’s uptake rate for 25 to 49-year-olds was 61%, while for 50 to 64-year-olds it was 74%. The latest published comparison data (up to March 2024) when the practice attained similar figures, showed it was ranked 72nd of the 175 GPs in North Central London for uptake in the lower age group; and 47th in relation to the older group.

We discussed the matter with practice staff. It was likely that some patients had their screening done privately, without informing the practice for their records to be updated. We saw the practice routinely monitored data and reviewed performance at staff meetings. Action had been taken to improve uptake of the screening. Records of patients overdue screening were flagged, and staff used this information to implement the call and recall process and to raise the matter opportunistically with patients during routine contacts.

Screening appointments were offered at the practice and, under the local enhanced access scheme, at other locations across the borough during the evening and at weekends, to provide flexibility for working age patients. The practice provided unverified data which indicated a marked improvement on the figures of 2 years ago and was confident the improvement would be sustained.

We saw that improving childhood immunisations and cervical screening uptake were included in the practice’s three-year business plan.

The practice showed us evidence of patients with long-term conditions, such as asthma and diabetes, being called for health reviews. We saw that all eligible asthma patients had been reviewed in the past 12 months.

We were also shown the results of several clinical audits, for example in relation to asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and various prescribing audits. These had been reviewed and discussed at clinical meetings, identifying learning points and agreeing, where relevant, actions for improvement.

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.