The Calverton Practice

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 outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. On the whole, care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

This service scored 83 (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 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 service was positive. People felt involved in assessments of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual needs. Staff had a good knowledge of the local community and were aware of their needs. Reception staff used digital flags within the clinical 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.

The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions.

Staff could refer people with social needs to a social prescriber.

The service 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. On the whole, clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance. However, we found that the follow up of patients after an acute asthma attack within an appropriate timeframe was inconsistent. The provider took action to address this immediately after our assessment.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared 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 PPG spoke positively about how the practice worked with them to make improvements.

Staff reflected the benefits of how the practice worked as a team to support people. There was evidence of working with wider health care teams through a range of MDT meetings. Patients had access to services provided by the local PCN, including social prescribers and care home rounds. Support and learning was shared across the PCN.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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

National data showed that all 5 indicators for childhood immunisations had achieved the minimum 90% uptake target, with 2 of the 5 having achieved the 95% World Health Organisation based target for uptake and had been consistent over time. National data showed the uptake of cervical screening had been consistent over time and was above the national target of 80%.

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 carried out their own audits to monitor and improve care as well as participating in PCN and national audit activities.

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. We found that some ReSPECT records held by the practice were not the signed copies. The practice told us signed copies had been added to the relevant patient records following our assessment.