Chapelthorpe Medical Centre

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. People were involved in assessments of their needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving between services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. Following 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.

The practice made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Patient feedback we received as part of this process regarding how the practice worked with them to assess their needs was generally positive.

People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. For example, results from the National GP Patient Survey (2025) confirmed that 90% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last appointment (national average 90%).

Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. There was a system in place to highlight any specific individual needs, such as requirement for a longer appointment or use of a translator, on the clinical system.

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 practice 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.

The practice used an automated electronic recall system to support long term conditions reviews and other recalls such as shared care, repeat and follow up blood tests and dexa scans.

As part of our assessment, a CQC GP Specialist Advisor (SpA) carried out a series of remote clinical searches of patient records to assess the practice’s processes around the management of patients with long-term conditions, for example, asthma, chronic kidney disease, diabetes and hypothyroidism. Overall, we found the practice had good management of these patients.

The practice worked well across teams and services to support people. Information was shared between services via the clinical system.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver care, treatment, and support. We saw there were systems and processes in place to ensure care was delivered and reviewed in a coordinated way. There were regular documented multi-disciplinary meetings, the practice also used the clinical system to communicate with other services.

The practice provided services to 3 care homes. As part of this assessment, we received feedback from 1 of the care homes which spoke positively about working with the practice. They told us the practice was very responsive and requests for visits were responded to quickly.

The practice 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 practice actively promoted and supported local health champions (volunteers who work within the community to provide health and wellbeing opportunities for local people) to enable patients to access activities such as weekly walks, carers and friendship groups and crafts groups.

The practice 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 practice met expected uptake for all childhood immunisations and in some cases exceeded the World Health Organisation target of 95%. For example, uptake for children aged 1 who had completed a primary course of immunisation for Diphtheria, Tetanus, Polio, Pertussis, Haemophilus influenza type b (Hib), Hepatitis B (Hep B) ((i.e. t3 doses of DTaP/IPV/Hib/HepB) was 99%, uptake for children aged 2 who had received their booster immunisation for Pneumococcal infection (i.e. received Pneumococcal booster) (PCV booster) was 97% and the percentage of children aged 2 who had received their immunisation for Haemophilus influenza type b (Hib) and Meningitis C (MenC) (i.e. received Hib/MenC booster) was 98%.

In addition, the practice had achieved target uptakes for cervical screening.

The practice 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.