Hall Green 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 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 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 always made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by thoroughly assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The practice proactively asked people if they were a carer and then telephoned them to ensure they were receiving all the health checks and support available to them.

The practice increased the health care assistant’s contractual hours, with their agreement, to allow more time for health checks, for example weight management.

The practice extended their opening hours, for evenings and weekends to accommodate certain groups of patients. This had increased the rates of cervical screening.

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. 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 effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

The results of the National GP Patient Survey were above average for questions relating to assessing needs. For example, 97% felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them, compared to 92% nationally and 92% locally, and 94% felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment, compared to 90% nationally and 91% locally.

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. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

The experience of patients, as indicated in the National GP Patient Survey showed that 97% of respondents (compared to 93% nationally) stated that during their last appointment they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to.

The practice 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 when people moved between different services.

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, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

The practice 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 andsupport.

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.

The practice supported national priorities and initiatives to improve the population’s health, including stop smoking and tackling obesity campaigns. Patients were encouraged to attend cancer screening and take up vaccinations offered as part of national programmes. The practice had extended consultation hours to enable and encourage patients to attend their cervical cancer screening appointments.

The practice 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.

During our assessment of the service, we noted that the practice had undertaken a number of audits with a view to improving outcomes for patients.

The practice 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.

The National GP Patient Survey results indicated showed that 97% of respondents had stated that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment, compared to 91% nationally 92% locally.

Staff understood the importance of ensuring that people fully understood what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before they delivered care or treatment. There was a system in place to record people’s consent appropriately. Clinical staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act.