Hetton Group 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 67 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective. We saw that oversight of long-term conditions could be improved.

For example, we looked at 5 patient records in detail who were prescribed medication for hypothyroidism. All 5 patients were overdue blood tests, 3 were from over 3 years previously.

The care of patients with diabetes was variable. Some of the monitoring of these patients could have been better. Some diabetic reviews were overdue.

We asked the practice to review these records and to follow up on these patients after our clinical searches, which they did.

However, we saw care of asthma patients was good. We reviewed 13 consultations, all except 1 were well documented with clear planning for follow up care.

We received very positive feedback from 2 of the 3 care homes where the practice provided care to residents. We were told the care could not be faulted. A ward round was carried out every 2 weeks with a GP, nurse and pharmacist.

The service mostly 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 in most cases.

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 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 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.

The service did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We saw examples of clinical audits. The practice provided us with a list of audits carried out in the last 2 years. There was an audit regarding adrenaline auto injector pens, (AAI), which are used for the emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. They sent another audit of medication used to treat diabetes. The audits were not complete cycles so did not demonstrate any improvement to patient care or outcomes, and it was not clear why each audit had been chosen or completed.

From data available to us from 2024, we saw the % of persons eligible for cervical cancer screening, from the 2 different age groups monitored was 73.4 and 76.1% respectively, the national target is 80%. However, the practice told us they had worked to improve their rate and from unverified data they were able to supply us with current rates of 84% and 90% uptake respectively.

The practice met national targets for child immunisations.

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.