The Woodberry Practice Also known as Drs J.E.Selwood, A. Patel, K.S. Bluston & C Lopez Peig

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 staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them with 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.

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 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 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 stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

The service 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 service fell slightly short of the national target of 90% for the uptake of childhood immunisations. For example, between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025, the percentage of children aged 5 who had received immunisations for measles, mumps and rubella (two doses of MMR) was 79.9%, and the percentage of children age 2 who had received their booster immunisation for Pneumococcal infection (PCV booster) was 85.7%. The service also performed lower than the England average in relation to several cancer screening programmes, including screening for breast, bowel and cervical cancer. As of 30 June 2024, the number of women who had an adequate screening test in the previous 3.5 years was 73.9% (age 25-49) and 76.1% (age 50-64). Both figures were below the expected target of 80%. The practice had an internal reporting system to monitor attendance at immunisation and cancer screening appointments. This included a system to provide all staff involved with the latest information. The practice nurse would then be provided with a list of patients to proactively contact and invite for an appointment. The practice linked baby development checks with immunisation schedules and used that time to educate families regarding the importance of childhood immunisations. The practice stated that this helped them to keep in contact with parents and encourage them to attend for immunisation. The practice took into consideration the increasing transient population and working families when planning appointments and made appointments available throughout the day rather than during specific clinic times. We were assured that the management of the practice were aware of the lower figures and had an action plan in place to improve on current uptake.

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.