Rutherford Medical Centre

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 requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

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

CQC requested feedback from patients through ‘Give Feedback on Care’ and received 32 responses. All feedback received was positive about the care and treatment patients had received. Patient experience of the service as indicated in the National GP Patient Survey showed that 93% of patients who responded felt they knew what the next steps would be after contacting the service, higher than the local and national average of 84%, and 94% of patients who responded had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to, higher than the local and national average of 93%.

People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. 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 service 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. We carried out a random selection of clinical searches to review how patients’ medicines were monitored and if the appropriate care and treatment was being received. These included a review of patients prescribed methotrexate, an immune suppressant medicine and checks to ensure patients with potential missed diagnosis of diabetes were being reviewed appropriately. The review of a sample of patients’ records showed appropriate monitoring and reviews were being carried out in line with clinical guidance.

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. Leaders and staff collaborated closely with colleagues in the local Primary Care Network (PCN) to meet the needs of the patient population.

Staff told us there was an open culture and the practice manager had an open-door approach. They told us the whole leadership team were approachable and supportive. Most staff were longstanding. Staff told us teamwork was good and without exception, they enjoyed working at the practice. Staff told us they felt confident and comfortable approaching the management team for any reason.

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.

People living with long-term health conditions underwent regular monitoring. Staff referred or signposted them to local support services for information, education, advice, and support linked to their needs. The practice contacted patients who did not attend cervical screening and child immunisation programmes to encourage uptake. The percentage of people eligible for cervical screening were above expected targets for patients aged 25 to 49 years old (expected 80%, observed 80.1%) and aged 50 to 64 years old (expected 80%, observed 82.2%). The practice met or exceeded the World Health Organisation target of 90% in all categories for child immunisation categories.

The service 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.

People who required monitoring underwent regular checks on their health. Leaders demonstrated that monitoring and improving outcomes for patients was important to them and they used information and data to drive improvement. Regular searches of patients’ medicines were undertaken to monitor patients. Depending on the results, this included providing extra help to manage long-term conditions, advice for those on multiple medicines and better access to health checks.

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 made in line with relevant legislation. We sampled 3 patient records with a (DNACPR) decision. Of these, all contained the information expected.

The National GP Patient Survey results showed that 94% of respondents had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to during their last general practice appointment, above the local and national average of 93%.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated the importance of ensuring that people understood what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before they delivered care or treatment. Staff had undergone training in the Mental Capacity Act.