Dr Raju and Partners

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. 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 well-being 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. They worked in collaboration with other services to do this, for example the social prescriber and the Primary Care Network.

Staff focused on identifying risks to people’s health, including people with long-term conditions and those with caring responsibilities. Clinicians identified at-risk individuals and referred them to targeted pre-diabetes programmes and healthy lifestyle support. The practice actively championed national initiatives such as a free drop-in Stop Smoking Service which was promoted on the practice’s website. Clinicians regularly referred patients for weight management support.

The service provided tailored support for specific vulnerable groups in the community. For example, the practice was an accredited Royal College of General Practitioners and NHS Veteran Friendly practice. Staff were specially trained to understand military medical histories, providing targeted care, priority treatment, and referrals for ex-forces personnel and their families. The service signposted people bereaved by suicide to Healing Horses, a dedicated weekly well-being group. A clinical member of staff had completed a quality improvement project to improve the assessment and management of peri-menopausal and menopausal women with reoccurring urinary tract infections. As a result, an evidence-base pathway and structured assessment process had been put in place.
 

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 of which 3 of the 5 indicators exceeded the World Health Organisation (WHO) target of 95% uptake. The service met the 80% uptake rate for cervical screening. The service performed better than the England average in relation to several cancer screening programmes, including screening for breast and bowel cancer. For example, breast screening uptake was 81% compared with the England average of 70%. The service had effective systems in place to follow up people who failed to attend for screening.
 

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.