Sunlight Group Practice Also known as Parkfield 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 assessed all quality statements under this key question. The rating given is Good.

Staff involved people in assessing their needs and ensured they had information to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. They offered advice and support throughout. Staff collaborated effectively and worked in partnership with other services to help people access the support they needed without unnecessary delays.

They regularly reviewed assessments and considered each person’s communication preferences, personal circumstances, and health needs. Staff focused care and treatment on helping people live healthier lives, including encouraging participation in national screening programmes and vaccinations. They managed chronic disease effectively.

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.

Patient experience of the service as indicated in the 2025 National GP Patient survey showed that 89% of patients who responded felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment compared with the Integrated Care Service (ICS) result of 92% and the National result of 91%. 95% had confidence in the healthcare professionals treating them compared with the ICS and National results of 93%. Support was available for people with additional needs or communication needs, for example, people who required the services of an interpreter or patients who had a learning disability.

Of patients who responded to the 2025 National GP patient survey, 88% - said their needs were met during their last appointment compared with the ICS result of 91% and the National result of 90%.

Requests for appointments were initially triaged and signposted by the reception staff who had received care navigation training, before passing on to the duty GP if required. People who reported symptoms that could be considered a clinical emergency could be seen on the day or be signposted to a more relevant service. Patients were advised when to seek further help and what to do if their condition deteriorated. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

Relevant information was shared with other professionals when planning care and treatment and treatment records were updated to reflect any changes made.

People living with a long-term condition and those with a learning disability were invited for regular review of their health, care and treatment and staff used templates for this to ensure the reviews were appropriately detailed and recorded.

The provider had effective systems to identify people with potentially undiagnosed conditions, for example diabetes and cancer. People who were the most clinically vulnerable were prioritised and the practice worked with other healthcare professionals to deliver coordinated packages of care.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with national guidance, evidence-based good practice and required standards.

Staff attended meetings, training, educational sessions and underwent regular appraisal. We looked at the workflow for managing clinical correspondence within the clinical patient record system and tasks and found these were mostly up to date on a daily basis. We observed tasks that were being managed by non-clinical staff and these were up to date and used as reminders for staff to manage patient care.

The provider trained a high number of Foundation (FT) and Speciality (ST) doctors who are trainees at various stages of their internship. They were supervised and able to see patients unaccompanied with the aid of dedicated trainers and access to all necessary best practice guidelines via their clinical system and shared drive on their computer.

Staff had time factored into their days to deal with administrative tasks and share clinical discussions, queries and best practice every day.

Our review of the clinical record system for the sample of people whose care and treatment we looked at, indicated that people received care, treatment and support that was evidence-based and in line with good practice standards. The results of the clinical searches for the management of patients living with long term conditions were good and any gaps we identified in the monitoring of patients were dealt with immediately by the provider.

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. Leaders and staff worked closely with colleagues in the local primary care network (PCN) to meet the needs of the patient population. In addition, members of the clinical team were involved in supporting patients in drug and alcohol (DA) rehabilitation services.

Multi-disciplinary meetings were held on a regular basis in house and with other services so that when people received care from a range of different staff, teams or services, such as those in the affiliated care homes, this was co-ordinated.

Staff demonstrated good working relationships with other local services such as many charities within the community to support and improve people’s physical and mental health.

Shared care agreements were in place to ensure that prescribing arrangements between primary and secondary care were well managed.

We received positive feedback from partnership services about the good relationship between themselves and staff at the practice.

The service supported people to live healthier lives and manage their health and wellbeing. 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, those in rehabilitation and those with caring responsibilities.

People were called in for regular checks on their health when they were living with a long term condition.

Staff supported local and national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including smoking cessation and encouraging patients to take up national screening programmes. Staff were also involved in services for homeless people undertaking visits at shelters and encouraging health improvement.

People living with long term health conditions underwent regular monitoring. Staff referred or signposted them to local support services for information, education, advice and support linked to their needs. The practice contacted patients who did not attend cervical screening and child immunisation programmes to encourage uptake. People were also encouraged and supported to make healthier choices to help promote and maintain their health and wellbeing and prevent deterioration.

The percentage of persons eligible for cervical screening as of 31/06/2023 who were screened was 70% which was lower than the expected target of 80%. We discussed this with members of the team who demonstrated that people who had not attended for cancer screening were followed up and encouraged to attend. Two indicators for childhood immunisation uptake were below the 90% World Health Organisation target whilst all other targets were met. Staff told us the reasons for any poor uptake and demonstrated the efforts the practice made to educate patients around the importance of immunisation and to encourage uptake.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They sought assurance through a series of key performance indicators and quality improvement activity. The practice was able to demonstrate improvements through audits which they shared during the assessment.

Positive outcomes were demonstrated through patient experience and GP practice indicators.

From the clinical records we reviewed, we found that people who used the service experienced positive outcomes in line with best practice guidance.

Leaders demonstrated that monitoring and improving outcomes for patients was important to them and they used information and data to drive improvement. There was evidence of clinical, non-clinical and medicines audits carried out as a means to improve outcomes for patients. CQC data showed the practice was in line with other services within the locality and nationally for outcomes for patients.

People who used the service felt confident making informed decisions about their care and treatment because staff provided the information they needed to support them. The National GP Patient Survey showed that 92% of respondents felt the health professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment compared with the ICS result of 93% and the National result of 92%, and 89% were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment compared with the ICS result of 92% and the National result of 91%.

Staff we spoke with emphasised the importance of helping people understand what they were consenting to and consistently obtained consent before delivering care or treatment. Clinical staff had completed training in the Mental Capacity Act, and following our assessment, the provider arranged mental capacity awareness training for non-clinical staff. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the legal requirements and guidance relating to consent and decision-making.

We reviewed a sample of ‘Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ (DNACPR) decisions in patient records. Staff had completed these documents appropriately, shared them with relevant services, and added alerts to the patient record system. We also found relevant documentation in the care records of patients who lacked the capacity to make decisions.