Crawley Road 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 practices to achieve positive outcomes.

This service scored 71 (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. Patients we spoke with felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs.

Ninety-two percent of patients who responded to the GP Patient Survey carried out from January to March 2024, said they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment.

There were effective arrangements in place for working with other health professionals to ensure quality of care for patients. During the assessment we spoke with four patients, who told us clinicians took time to explain things and helped them to understand any health issues they had.

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 healthcare professionals, such as the community matron to ensure continuity of care. Clinicians attended monthly integrated care meetings to discuss patients with complex needs. Shared care agreements were made with secondary care providers regarding the prescribing and monitoring of patients' medication.

There were effective arrangements in place for working with other health professionals to ensure quality of care for patients. During the assessment we spoke with four patients, who told us clinicians took time to explain things and helped them to understand any health issues they had.

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 healthcare professionals, such as the community matron to ensure continuity of care. Clinicians attended monthly integrated care meetings to discuss patients with complex needs. Shared care agreements were made with secondary care providers regarding the prescribing and monitoring of patients' medication.

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.

The latest GP Patient Survey carried out from January to March 2024, showed that 86% of respondents felt their needs had been met during their last general practice appointment. Patients we spoke with during the assessment reported that staff supported them to live healthier lives by inviting them for routine check-ups, sending appointment reminders, and providing information about healthier lifestyles.

Clinicians understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making. We saw that consent was documented. Clinicians supported patients to make decisions. Where appropriate, they assessed and recorded a patient’s mental capacity to decide. For example, we reviewed three patients Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions and found they were made in line with relevant legislation and were appropriate. However, we did note that two of the records did not have the patient’s mental capacity documented. Staff had completed Mental Capacity Act training.

Clinicians understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making. We saw that consent was documented. Clinicians supported patients to make decisions. Where appropriate, they assessed and recorded a patient’s mental capacity to decide. For example, we reviewed three patients Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions and found they were made in line with relevant legislation and were appropriate. However, we did note that two of the records did not have the patient’s mental capacity documented. Staff had completed mental capacity act training.