Rothwell and Desborough Healthcare Group

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 with advice and support. People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people to ensure they took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity. There was evidence of effective systems to monitor and support patients with long term conditions. This key question has been rated as 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 practice made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Feedback from people using the service was predominantly positive. Results of the National GP Patient Survey (published in July 2025) showed 92% of patients felt their needs were met during their last GP appointment compared to the national average of 90%. 98% of patients felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last appointment compared to the national average of 92%. Leaders and staff told us the practice used codes and alerts on the patient’s record to highlight special needs and requirements. 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 practice 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 practice planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Meetings were held to ensure staff were updated with the latest information, guidance and changes within the practice.

The clinical searches we undertook of the practice’s clinical records system showed the monitoring of people with long-term conditions was in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations. For example, one of our clinical record searches reviewed the number of patients with asthma who had been prescribed 2 or more courses of rescue steroids in the last 12 months. We identified a total of 126 patients and reviewed a random sample of 5 patient records. We found that all patients in the sample had been managed appropriately.

We reviewed patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 4 or 5 to check the appropriate monitoring had been undertaken. Our search identified 2 patients and our clinical review found they were both receiving appropriate monitoring.

We reviewed monitoring of people with hypothyroidism (when the thyroid gland does not produce enough thyroid hormone that can lead to tiredness and weight gain). Our search identified 6 patients, and we reviewed 5 of these and found they had all received appropriate monitoring in the preceding 18 months.

We reviewed the monitoring of diabetes care and found that 158 patients appeared to have not been reviewed, despite having HbA1C levels of 75mmol or more. (HbA1C is a blood test that measures the average blood glucose levels over a period of 2 to 3 months). We reviewed a random sample of 5 patients and found no concerns with the management of their care.

The practice held registers for patients and provided annual health checks for those with learning disabilities, people with severe mental health conditions and palliative patients. The practice shared evidence of clinical audits undertaken to effectively improve patient care.

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 processes in place enabled staff to liaise regularly with community teams such as district nurses, health visitors, and palliative care nurses. Staff told us and we saw evidence of regular multi-disciplinary team meetings that were held with external agencies where vulnerable people were discussed and actions were recorded. The practice regularly discussed patients receiving end-of-life care.

The practice supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The practice supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care. Staff focused on identifying risks to people’s health, including those who are (or might be) vulnerable such as 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 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.

At the time of our assessment, the latest published information from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) showed that the practice had met the World Health Organisation minimum target of 90% for the number of children immunised against various infectious childhood diseases for all age groups.

The latest published information available to the CQC from NHS Digital (June 2024) showed the practice’s uptake for cervical cancer screening for women aged 25 to 49 years old was below the 80% national target, observed at 72.5%. The practice’s uptake for cervical cancer screening for women aged 50 to 64 years old was also below the 80% national target, observed as 75.8%. Leaders advised they had undertaken targeted work to improve cervical cancer screening uptake. They were able to share unverified data for the period ending March 2026. This showed the practice’s uptake for cervical cancer screening for women aged 25 to 49 years old was 91.4%. The practice’s uptake for cervical cancer screening for women aged 50 to 64 years old was 93%.

The practice told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People we spoke with and the evidence we reviewed did not raise any concerns around consent. People understood their rights about consent to the care and treatment they were offered. Clinicians understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent. Clinicians supported people to make decisions ensuring their views and wishes were considered during care planning. Assessments of mental capacity were carried out when needed and were decision specific. Staff told us they were able to adapt or translate information about care and treatment so that people could understand, to support them making informed decisions. All staff we spoke with had completed relevant training and were able to discuss how to gain informed consent for treatment. We reviewed a random sample of staff training records which showed all staff had up-to-date training on informed consent and the 2005 Mental Capacity Act (MCA). We saw that consent was documented and processes were in place for chaperones to be present if requested.

In line with locality requirements, the practice was transitioning from the use of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions to Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms. Records we reviewed demonstrated these were appropriate, regularly reviewed, and made in line with current legislation and professional standards.