The Gill 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 good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 79 (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 always made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by thoroughly 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. For example, 91% of patients felt their needs were met during their last appointment, which was above the national average of 90%.

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.

Feedback and evidence from the social prescribing Wellbeing Matters service was positive. A total of 518 referrals were made into the service in 2025/26. The Gill Medical Centre was identified as the highest referring practice.

People were able to access support for a wide range of health and social needs, particularly mental health and social support. Staff worked with people to understand their individual circumstances, goals and wider wellbeing needs, providing personalised support through tailored appointments and structured follow-up.

We saw specific examples of the positive impact of social prescribing on people’s lives. For example, one person referred was supported through eight tailored sessions. This included coordinated input from a wellbeing worker, employment support services and volunteering services. As a result, the person’s confidence improved, their wellbeing score increased, and they were supported to access a volunteering placement, helping them move closer to employment.

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.

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. The practice implemented a system to ensure any patients with abnormal liver test results were invited in to discuss their lifestyle.

The practice hosted a prediabetes day which involved practice staff and experts presenting recommendations to support patients with management of non-diabetic hyperglycaemia. This led to a greater patient confidence and understanding of their condition.

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. The practice participated in the locally commissioned service 'Salford Standards', and achieved 100% in the year 2025/2026.

The practice met national targets for screening and immunisations however the practice was slightly below target for cervical screening but were making efforts to increase uptake through regular recalls and providing patients with information around the importance of attending appointments. From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance.

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.