Ash Trees 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 the same.

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

People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. Feedback from people using the service was positive. The results of the National GP Patient Survey were in line with national and local averages. For example, 94% of respondents felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them, compared to 92% nationally and 92% locally, and 90% felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment, compared to 90% nationally and 91% locally.

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. For example, the practice devised and introduced an initiative in partnership with an external healthcare provider which aimed to identify and provide interventions for those patients who may have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Through focussing on cholesterol and blood pressure monitoring, and undertaking structured medication reviews, they had improved take up of recommended medicines and improved test results for this cohort of patients.

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 that care was mostly provided in line with current guidance.

The experience of people who used the service, as indicated in the National GP Patient Survey, showed that 93% of respondents, stated that during their last appointment, they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to. This was the same as the national and local results.

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. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

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.

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 practice performed well in relation to childhood vaccinations, exceeding 95% in 4 out of the 5 childhood vaccination targets and achieving 89.4% against a target of 90% in the measles, mumps and rubella ll vaccinations. The most recent published data fell slightly short in cervical screening as the percentage of persons eligible for cervical cancer screening who were screened adequately was below target for the within 3.5 years for persons aged 25 to 49 (74.3%, expected rate 80%) and within 5.5 years for persons aged 50 to 64 (76.5%, expected rate 80%). Following the assessment the provider gave us evidence that they had met the target for 50 to 64 year olds in more recent unpublished data.

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.