Newport Medical Group

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.

This service scored 67 (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.

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 non-visible disabilities. 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. We saw that people had been signposted to debt services as well as weight loss services within the local community.

The service did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

The service did not always demonstrate a proactive or positive safety culture, and systems for risk mitigation and oversight were not consistently effective. The provider offered a circumcision clinic in addition to core GP services, which sits outside the General Medical Services contract. There was no peer review or clinical oversight to support clinicians in identifying safer practice, such as recognising that weighing infants is an important control measure. The lack of oversight meant the risks associated with sending clinical images to the lead clinician’s mobile device were not identfied.

Within the circumcision clinic, children were not always weighed prior to the procedure to ensure accurate dosing of local anaesthetic. Although the provider only treated children within a defined age range and had experience in administering safe doses, they acknowledged that weighing was the safest approach. This practice was implemented immediately once the risk was recognised.

However, audits and reviews were robust within the GP practice. Audits identified areas for improvement and allowed the management team to address concerns. An example was how the managers had agreed that triaging should be completed either on the telephone or in person should people not have access to internet connected devices after feedback from patients.

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 practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

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. We saw examples of people referred to smoking cessation and weight loss clinics.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to patients’ health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, patients 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.

The service did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The practice did not meet national targets for screening and immunisations. The practice’s immunisation and screening uptake remained below national targets. However, the provider was aware of the impact of local deprivation on engagement and had taken steps to address these barriers. They had made targeted efforts to encourage attendance, including communicating with people in their own languages and providing translated information materials. Despite these actions, attendance was not always achievable, but the provider continued to work proactively to improve uptake.

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.