Tudor Lodge Surgery

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 good.

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 took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity to make their own decisions.

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 practice 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. 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 social prescribing which was provided by external agencies. People could also refer themselves to these services.

The practice 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.

The practice worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared thorough assessments of people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people only needed to tell their story once. The results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey indicated people were confident staff had all the information they required. For example, 94% of responders said they felt the healthcare professional they saw at their last appointment had all the information they needed about the patient. This was higher than the local and national averages of 92%.

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. There was a process to review referrals to secondary 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 and support. Posters and leaflets with information designed to support people to make healthier choices were on display in the waiting area.

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 practice website contained information and links to other sources of information to support people to make healthier choices and support their lifestyles.

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.

The practice met national targets for childhood immunisations apart from 5-year-olds due their 2nd dose of MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) and were working towards achieving the national target. The practice held an event to increase the uptake of immunisations available to teenagers and young people, where those that attended received a voucher to claim a free ice cream.

Verified data for cervical screening available at the time of this assessment was from June 2024 and showed the practice was not meeting the uptake target of 80%. Unverified data provided by the practice showed they had exceeded the 80% uptake of cervical screening as of September 2025.

From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used the practice experienced positive health outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance. People with long-term conditions were offered an effective annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met in line with guidance.

The practice 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. Decisions were recorded on patient records. We viewed a sample of these records and found they contained a flag that highlighted there was a DNACPR decision recorded within the record.