Capelfield 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. Staff were aware of community support initiatives to support people to live healthier, for example, the service referred people to groups supporting people living with Parkinsons disease and dementia at the nearby community centre. The service also told us they had good links with youth support workers at the nearby youth centre. They provided an example of how they worked with the youth centre to support young people to access mental health support if they were experiencing difficulties.

The practice website also provided information to people using the service about support for weight management, stopping smoking, sexual health, drug and alcohol use as well as support for carers.

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. Data showed the number of women aged 25 to 49 years old who have had an adequate screening test for cervical cancer within the last 3.5 years was below the expected target with an achievement of 78% compared to a target of 80%. The service was aware and had made improvements to their services to ensure women could access screening at a time that was convenient for them and ensured both opportunistic discussions and formal recall methods were used to encourage uptake.

The service performed better than the England average in relation to several cancer screening programmes. For example, the service’s achievement for breast cancer screening was 73% compared to a national average of 70% and for bowel cancer the service had achieved 79% compared to the national average of 71%. The service met national targets for the uptake of childhood immunisations.

We reviewed examples of clinical audits completed by the service which were chosen to monitor outcomes specific to the service’s population. For example, a national increase in prescribing of hormone replacement therapy to treat menopause symptoms had prompted an audit which reviewed the care for 170 people and found care could be improved for only 4 of the 170 people. A second cycle was in progress which had reviewed the care for 73 people and found only 2 examples of care which could be improved.

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.