Lansdowne 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 staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them with 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.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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 people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and those with caring responsibilities. The service offered NHS health checks and checks for people new to the service to promote healthy living.A blood pressure machine was available in the waiting room to facilitate self-screening for people when they attended the service.

There were information boards with posters and leaflets tailored to the needs of the people who used the service. Information was also available on the service’s website. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity. The service had ‘community connectors’, who supported people through a holistic approach tailored to their individual needs. The service had access to a frailty team to support older people, including those experiencing social isolation or deprivation. Staff were able to signpost people to community groups such as coffee clubs, and the service maintained close links with dementia services, enabling referral or signposting to a dementia advisor for additional support.

People were asked whether they were, or had, a carer, and this information was flagged in their clinical records.People coded as carers were provided with information packs and access to local support initiatives. Staff were proactive in monitoring the wellbeing of carers, including offering additional support and access to health appointments where needed. The service was veteran-accredited, with processes to identify and code veterans, enabling priority treatment for service-related conditions and offering tailored support for mental and physical health.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive, consistent and met the expectations of people themselves.

The service met national targets for the uptake of childhood immunisations. The service had effective systems to ensure invites for immunisations, screenings and reviews were sent appropriately and in a timely manner. They also had arrangements to follow up on missed appointments for health checks and immunisations. Staff opportunistically offered immunisations, or other outstanding tests, to people to help improve care outcomes.

The service performed better than the England average in relation to several cancer screening programmes, including screening for breast and bowel cancer, as well as screening for cervical cancer for those eligible aged 50-64 years. However, data from 2024/25 showed the service’s uptake of cervical screening for eligible women aged 25-49 years had not met the national target of 80%, with it being 78.8%. People had been offered opportunistic cervical screening when possible and could access this service outside of core hours, to improve uptake. Unverified data provided by the service as part of this assessment, demonstrated the target had since been met. The service also worked in partnership with their primary care network (PCN) to offer additional appointments at the ‘Women’s Health Hub’, with staff from this service rotating to support these clinics. Clinics were held twice weekly and offered a range of services, including menopause support, contraception advice, gynaecology services and cervical screening. A PCN-wide audit was completed, which demonstrated it had increased women’s health capacity for all services in the PCN from 52 to 155 appointments per month, reduced waiting times from 4–6 weeks to 2–5 weeks, and a 42.8% reduction in secondary care referrals over 6 months.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.