Friarsgate 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 assessed two quality statements in the effective key question.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating has remained Good. 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.

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.

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

Reception staff used digital flags in the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present. Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. The provider had systems to identify people with undiagnosed conditions.

Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber via the primary care network. Furthermore, the practice had implemented the Vulnerable Patient Coordinator role to assist with the monitoring of the patients with long term conditions and complex needs.

The practice planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. The practice had ensured protected administration time to track changes to national guidance and safety alerts. Updates and the associated actions required were communicated by email and recorded in a shared tracking document which could be accessed by all members of the team.

A remote review of the patient record system showed that patients received appropriate long-term condition reviews. Patients with long-term conditions, such as asthma and chronic kidney disease, were offered an effective annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met. Following our previous assessment, the practice had recruited two new members of staff to the administrative team to oversee the patient recall system for long-term condition management. The recall system had been improved to ensure there was clinical oversight of failed contact attempts and safety netting processes were in place for these patients.

For patients with the most complex needs, the GPs worked with other health and care professionals to deliver a coordinated package of care.

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.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.