Petroc Group 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 good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and best practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to a person to make decisions in a person’s best interests when they did not have capacity.

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.

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 any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Reception staff used digital flags within the care 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. Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

The service had implemented state of play reports which they used to monitor care and treatment for people in areas such as long-term conditions to ensure reviews were carried out in a timely manner and best practice guidelines were followed. The service had purchased a specialist machine which was used to assist in diagnosing and monitoring treatment of people with chronic respiratory conditions.

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. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing 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 service worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

Regular multi-disciplinary team meetings were held with other health professionals to discuss people with complex needs and those at risk of inappropriate hospital admission.

The acute on the day team held a daily huddle with district nurses to coordinate people’s care.

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, people at risk of developing a long-term condition and those with caring responsibilities. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

Wellbeing walks had been established in the local area, and 4 volunteers had been trained to organise the walks. These started from the local library, who provided tea and coffee for the walkers. The social prescribing team linked with the lead GP who was responsible for frailty across the Primary Care Primary network (PCN) with the aim of reducing isolation and unplanned admissions to hospital. One primary aim was to see how information could be shared effectively, which led to the daily huddles with district nurses.

The service worked closely with the PCN social prescribing team in developing a service based on people’s need. For example, signposting people to areas of support, such as work well programmes and sessions with work coaches to facilitate reasonable adjustments, and assist with accessing support for mental health, confidence and self-esteem, to enable people to take up paid employment.

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

The service met national targets for most childhood immunisations, apart from the percentage of children aged 5 who had received the immunisation for measles, mumps and rubella, which was 89.4%, just below the 90% World Health Organisation target.

Screening data for cervical cancer (30/6/24) showed:

• 69.4% of eligible patients aged 25 to 49 years old had an adequate screening test within the last 3.5 years, compared with the expected percentage of 80%.
• 72.15 of eligible patients aged 50 to 64 years old had an adequate screening test within the last 5.5years, compared with the expected percentage of 80%.

The service was aware of these figures and actively promoted cervical screening.

The data for new cancer cases being treated following an urgent suspected cancer referral was 64% which was tending towards a positive variation when compared with the national average of 55.7%.

The service had a programme of quality improvement audits and allocated time was built into clinical teams’ rotas to carry out the audit activity. Audits covered areas such as antibiotic prescribing.

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. Staff gave examples of where they had used best interests’ decisions when a person did not have capacity. Examples were also given about gaining consent from people aged under 18 years old and the importance of taking the person’s views into account. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.