High Pastures 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 involved people in decisions about their care and treatment, provided them with advice and support, 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 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 service supported people to live healthier lives and manage their health and wellbeing.

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 conditions and those with caring responsibilities.

The provider worked to identify patients with potentially undiagnosed conditions to ensure these patients were provided with the care and treatment they required to improve their health and prevent a deterioration. For example, patients at risk of developing diabetes.

Members of the clinical team provided patients with information and support to manage their own health, care and wellbeing where possible. People were also encouraged and supported to make healthier choices to help promote and maintain their health and wellbeing and prevent deterioration.

Staff supported local and national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including smoking cessation and encouraging patients to take up national cancer screening programmes.

People living with long-term health conditions underwent regular monitoring. They were referred or signposted to local support services for information, education, advice and support linked to their needs. This included referral for diabetes education and dietary advice. Information on health conditions, patient support leaflets and support services was made available around the waiting areas.

People could be referred to services provided by the primary care network (PCN). These included a social prescribing service for support with social issues impacting on their health such as isolation and housing.

The service received a higher than average result in the national GP patient survey for respondents feeling that they had had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses at 70% (compared to 69% nationally).

Leaders demonstrated that monitoring and improving outcomes for patients was important to them and they used information and data to drive improvement.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. A range of searches of the patient record system were carried out on a regular basis to identify patient needs and ensure any identified need were met in line with best practice guidance. For example, to check that patients living with asthma or chronic kidney disease were receiving the appropriate care and treatment for their condition. Searches were also carried out to ensure patients underwent regular checks linked to prescribed medicines.

Clinical and non-clinical audits were carried out to improve outcomes for patients.

A system was in place to encourage uptake of childhood immunisations and the service met national targets for the uptake of childhood immunisations. The service performed close to but below target in relation to the cervical cancer screening programme and the provider told us how they worked to encourage greater uptake.

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.