Gainford Surgery Also known as Gainford 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.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to fully maximise their independence, choice and control. The provider supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Leaders and staff had taken time to learn the needs of the population.

The provider recognised an area for improvement around people who were elderly with a recent hospital discharge. We reviewed evidence which indicated all patients over 85 with a hospital discharge would be reviewed by a clinician, as opposed to a pharmacist which was the arrangement prior to the quality improvement work. The aim was to ensure patients were reviewed and, any changes were actioned effectively. For example changes to emergency healthcare plans or DNACPR documents. Leaders told us they intended to review the age and potentially lower this to 75.

Staff facilitated home visits to assist patients who required them.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and those with caring responsibilities. There was a clear process in place for this group of patients.

Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity. The provider recognised that due to the rural area, attending support groups could be challenging for patients. They had therefore made it possible for patients to access weight loss and diabetic support groups online. Staff were also able to signpost patients to a local stop smoking support group.

The provider 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 provider met national targets for the uptake of childhood immunisations as well as cancer screening programmes, including screening for breast, bowel and cervical cancer. The practice had a structured approach to engaging with people who may experience barriers in accessing healthcare. The most up recent data indicated cervical screening up take was 85.4% against a national average of 80%.

The provider offered adjustments for patients with a learning disability, such as longer appointments and a choice of clinician. At the time of inspection, the provider had completed annual reviews for 12 out of 14 of this cohort of patients. The 2 patients who were awaiting review, were due to be recalled during their month of birth later this year.

The provider had a structured recall plan to reach patients who previously had not attended an appointment. This included using different contact methods. Nurses contacted patients who were overdue cervical screening.

The provider monitored patient outcomes using 2- cycle audits. An audit we reviewed was in relation to a medicine prescribed to people who have conditions with their bones. The taking of such medicine requires patients to have a DEXA scan, which looks at bone density. The practice carried out an audit of patients who required the scan; 23 patients were found to be awaiting a scan due to a gap in the recall system at secondary care. They have now all been scanned. Current guidance indicates that a DEXA should be repeated every 5 years. The audit demonstrated that the practice had an effective recall system in place to ensure these patients were receiving this follow-up.

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.