Corbett Medical 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 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. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider 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 mostly positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident staff understood their individual and cultural needs. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. 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.

The practice used a system for patients who had complex/life limiting conditions where urgent access with continuity of care was specifically needed. Patients were added to a list with 2 named GPs as their main contact. Patients could access urgent appointments with their named GPs when their condition deteriorated.

Clinical staff used care reviews to consider people’s wider health and wellbeing needs. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.The practice had established processes for proactively identifying and managing patients with long-term conditions including severe mental illness, learning disabilities, frailty, cancer, palliative care needs and care-home residents. These included recall systems, proactive invitations, follow-up and escalation, home visits, multidisciplinary meetings and care-home reviews.

The provider always 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. They worked to develop evidence-based good practice and standards. Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. The practice had established mechanisms to ensure clinical knowledge remained current and that learning was translated into improvements in patient care. Learning from clinical governance and training (CGT) sessions, learning events, and identified knowledge gaps was reviewed and shared across the practice team. Actions arising from these discussions were incorporated into practice to support continuous learning and improvement. Monthly CGT sessions were structured to include the review of learning events, palliative care discussions, and dedicated time for continuing professional development and clinical learning.

Leaders ensured clinical learning was further embedded through safeguarding meetings, diabetes multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, and GP registrar tutorials. Learning from these forums was shared across the practice team, with any actions identified or queries raised followed up with GPs to support continuous improvement in patient care.

leaders and staff discussed updates to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance at practice meetings and evidenced in meeting minutes. This demonstrated that national guidance and emerging evidence were actively considered when reviewing and developing clinical practice.

Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance. The provider had effective systems to identify people with previouslyundiagnosed conditions. CQC clinical searches showed the practice had a high level of monitoring for people with long term health conditions such as diabetes and chronic kidney disease. All patients we looked at had received the required reviews and had been coded on the clinical system appropriately. The recording of reviews was also of a high standard.

The provider demonstrated exceptionally effective partnership working across teams and services to ensure people received coordinated, seamless care. Comprehensive assessments and detailed information were shared whenever people moved between services, reducing duplication and ensuring individuals only needed to tell their story once. Staff had timely access to the information required to make informed decisions and deliver safe, effective, and person-centred care, treatment, and support. Robust communication and governance arrangements were in place to maintain continuity of care, including clear oversight when clinical responsibilities were delegated to other services.

Staff had established strong and productive relationships with a range of NHS partners, including the primary care network's care home team. The practice provided dedicated support to 9 care homes and demonstrated a proactive commitment to integrated care through a GP who spent 2 hours each day working within the care home multidisciplinary team. This collaborative approach enabled timely clinical input, enhanced care planning, and improved health outcomes for some of the most vulnerable people in their care. This meant people living in care homes were less likely to require hospital admissions as medical support was easily accessible for them.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The practice supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

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 provider monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. The provider worked towards meeting national targets for screening and immunisations. From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance.

Published national data showed the practice was slightly above the World Health Organisation 95% minimum targets for childhood immunisations. For example, the percentage of children aged 5 who had received immunisation for measles, mumps and rubella (two doses of MMR) was 97.7%. The provider had a process in place for following up children who missed vaccinations and exploring why this was the case.

The provider 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.