Park Royal 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. The service had attempted to improve uptake for cervical screening and childhood immunisations, although the impact of these changes had yet to be seen.

At our last assessment in March 2025, 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 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.

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. There was a programme of clinical audit and quality improvement activity to review the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided. Whilst the practice team encouraged people to participate in cervical cancer screening and childhood immunisation programmes, uptake rates remained below national screening targets in these areas.

The uptake rate for cervical screening was 76% for eligible women aged 50 to 64 years old, and 62% for eligible women aged 25 to 49 years old (national target 80%). The practice had implemented a structured and targeted approach to improving cervical screening uptake, with a particular focus on women aged 25 to 49 years, where uptake was lower compared to older age groups. Performance was monitored through performance data and internal review, with clear clinical and administrative leadership in place to oversee activity and drive improvement.

Flexible and extended appointment options, including longer appointments where needed, were introduced to reduce barriers for younger women. The call and recall system supported proactive follow-up of non-responders, alongside digital booking and opportunistic screening. Staff provided sensitive, patient-centred communication, with access to translation services. The practice promoted dignity and a trauma-informed approach to care, using patient feedback to inform engagement strategies. Uptake was regularly monitored, with ongoing action to improve coverage and reduce variation between age groups.

The provider was achieving childhood immunisation uptake rates of 83% for children aged 1, 72-76% for children aged 2, and 65% for children aged 5.

The practice had implemented a structured approach to improving childhood immunisation uptake, tailored to the needs of its diverse population. Systems were in place to identify and actively manage eligible cohorts through call and recall processes, with activity clearly recorded on the clinical system.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of vaccine hesitancy and supported parents through informed, sensitive discussions, including consideration of cultural and religious factors. The practice also engaged with local communities to promote immunisation uptake and improve awareness, using accessible information in a range of languages. Flexible appointment options, including extended hours and weekend provision, were available to improve access. Processes were in place to ensure vaccination records for children immunised abroad were obtained, verified, and accurately recorded. The practice monitored performance using a range of data sources to provide oversight of uptake. They had also engaged with wider vaccination initiatives (e.g. Vaccination UK) enabling increased access for families outside the practice boundary.

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.