Whitley Road 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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

This service scored 83 (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 always made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by thoroughly assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Feedback received from people using the service was overwhelmingly positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs.

The reception staff were acutely aware of the needs of the local community and knew their patients very well. Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments due to learning disability or for a translator to be present.

Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during regular 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, financial hardship or housing difficulties to local charities.

People were supported and there had been improvements to individuals health due to an improvement in mental health.

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 always worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared thorough assessments of people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people only needed to tell their story once.

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 worked with specialists from secondary care and arranged for patients to be seen and receive medications that they would not normally receive when being treated at a GP Practice. This improved the patients’ health and well being and is something that had been rolled out to all people that fit this criterion. For Example: People living with diabetes receive care and treatment from the practice Nurse who has specialist diabetes training which has improved outcomes for patients and has reduced secondary care referrals.

This initiative was then rolled out to other people in similar circumstances within the practice.

The service always supported people to manage their health and well being to fully 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.

As part of an initiative to reduce health inequalities in ethnic minority groups the service sent a team member to support the local Primary Care Network (PCN) to a local mosque and had discussions around the importance of cancer screening, diabetes, cholesterol and mental health. They also offered pulse and blood pressure checks to attendees. Anyone who had an abnormal reading was advised to either attend Accident and Emergency or speak to their own GP at the next earliest opportunity.

The staff made use of models to help explain where to check and what to look for. Separate quiet rooms were made available for individuals to discuss matters privately if they wanted.

Staff focused on identifying risks to patients’ health, 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 monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance.

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.

99% of people who responded to the GP patient survey stated that they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw during their last appointment. This compared to the national average of 92%.