The Shaftesbury 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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 71 (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. Feedback from people using the service was positive. 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. The practice invited carers for health checks and they also had access to a social prescriber which the practice could also refer to. The practice also had referral pathways to external services and community support which included mental health services, dietitians, physiotherapy, and smoking cessation services and voluntary sector organisations for housing, financial, or emotional support.

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. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance. The practice told us that they had carried out several quality improvement activities which aimed at enhancing patient care and treatment. We saw examples of 2 cycle audits which included an audit aiming to improve the practices’ diabetic treatment target, in line with Primary Care Network (PCN) performance.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. The practice had regular meetings with their PCN where learning would be shared. The Practice also held regular multi-disciplinary team meetings to discuss complex patient cases where information was shared in a structured and secure manner. Staff told us everyone at the practice was approachable and supportive.

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 supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health. This included referring patients to a wide range of services and referrals to support key health initiatives, including Diabetes Care, Smoking Cessation and Weight Management and Tackling Obesity.

The service regularly monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities statistics from June 2024 show that, the percentage of persons eligible for cervical cancer screening who were screened adequately within 3.5 years for persons aged 25 to 49 was 59% which was below the 80% national average. The number of women in this age group who have had an adequate screening test within the last 5.5 years as a percentage of the eligible population aged 50 to 64 years old was 73% which was below the 80% target. The practice, as result of the data, carried out a quality improvement project to look at the impact of sending reminder letters to increase cervical screening uptake. The percentage of children aged 5 who have received immunisation for measles, mumps and rubella (two doses of MMR) was 85% in comparison to the WHO (World Health Organisation) target of 95%.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. All staff we spoke to understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. We saw evidence on site that Do Not Attempt CardioPulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.