Church Lane 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, 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.

Staff at Church Lane Surgery supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice, and control. The practice supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The provider focused on identifying risks to people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and those with caring responsibilities.

Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including smoking cessation and weight management, the national cervical screening and bowel cancer screening programmes, childhood immunisations, and covid and flu vaccination programmes.

Church Lane Surgery routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive, consistent, and met the expectations of people themselves.

The surgery exceeded minimum national target for the uptake of 4 childhood immunisations and were just below the same 90% target for the other at 87.8% (The percentage of children aged 5 who have received immunisation for measles, mumps, and rubella - two doses of MMR).

They also performed significantly better than the England average in relation to several cancer screening programmes, including screening for breast and bowel cancers. For example, breast screening coverage of 53 to 70 year olds was 80.7% (England average 70.4%) and bowel cancer screening coverage of 60 to 74 year olds was 81.3% (England average 71.8%).

Screening for cervical cancer was also above the 80% national target for eligible patients in the 50 to 64 year old age group having had an adequate screening test in the last 5.5 years at 81.1%. The surgery was slightly below the 80% target however for eligible patients in the 25 to 49 year old age group having had an adequate screening test within the last 3.5 years at 78.3%.

The provider offered NHS health checks for 40 to 74-year-olds and annual health checks for patients with learning disabilities and patients with severe mental health conditions. Local monitoring arrangements for ensuring these checks were completed were in place. There was also a system in place for monitoring patients who did not attend for screening and follow ups (for example for cytology and immunisations).

Prescribing rates were lower than the national averages for psychotropic medicines (medicines used to treat mental health conditions) and gabapentinoids (medicines commonly used to treat neuropathic pain and certain neurological disorders). Prescribing rates for antibiotics (medicines used to treat infections caused by bacteria) were slightly above expected levels however (0.78 compared to 0.76).

The surgery maintained a programme of regular clinical audit focused on improving patient outcomes and, for example, recent audits had been completed for patients prescribed medication for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (to ensure appropriate coding and follow-up had been done), patients with prediabetes (to ensure appropriate blood monitoring had been done), patients who had undergone joint or soft tissue injections at the surgery (to check for complications) and patients with dementia (to ensure that appropriate reviews were being done).

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.