Riverside 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.

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.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Feedback from people using the service was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present. The practice maintained strong relationships with translators, who were available for face-to-face appointments. 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 2025 data showed that 92% of respondents were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last GP appointment. This was higher than the national average of 91%. In addition, 97% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last GP appointment. This was also higher than the national average of 90%.

The service did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Medication reviews were not always comprehensive. They did not aways include a review of all a person’s medicines or ensure that all recalls were up to date at the time of the medication review. Staff did not always involve people in reviews of their medicines.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. The practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care. The practice maintained good relationship with interpreters, who were available for clinical appointments but also available for collecting feedback from people and providing information on changes to the practice.

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.

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. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity. Information on these priorities were available on the practice website and within the waiting room.

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.

From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance. For example, we saw that adult shingles and pneumococcal vaccination uptake had increased by 11.6% and 17.9% respectively following a project in June 2025.

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. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation. We did find that a copy of the form was not always attached to the patient’s clinical records. Practice leaders audited records of patients who had received minor surgery at the practice.