Veor Surgery

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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed. This key question has been rated as Good.
 

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 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 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 clinical records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present. Staff could tell us how they recognised people needed urgent help for example, recognising sepsis symptoms.
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. (Social prescribing is an all-age, whole population approach that works particularly well for people who have one or more long-term conditions; who need support with low-level mental health issues; who are lonely or isolated; who have complex social needs which affect their wellbeing).
Staff assessed and reviewed people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. The national GP Patient Survey (GPPS) results from 2025 indicated 85% of respondents stated during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at listening to them.
The service had a policy for chaperoning and staff had received chaperone training.
 

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.
There were systems to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. However, clinical records we saw demonstrated care was not always provided in line with current guidance.
During our clinical searches, we reviewed the records of 4 people with asthma who had had 2 or more courses of rescue steroids in the last 12 months, who required follow up within 48 hours. We found these people had not been followed up in line with the national guidance and had not always received steroid cards. Following the inspection the service took action to address this and contacted people to arrange reviews of their condition.
The service was able to give examples of how they had used national guidelines to inform their processes for the management of long-term conditions. For example, the service had developed a process for the diagnosis of hypertension aligned guidelines produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to ensure best practice.
The service had systems to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. The service had regular clinical meetings where guidance and standards were discussed, and staff told us they had sufficient time for continuous professional development.
 

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. We observed the ‘daily team shout’ take place and noted staff were involved and engaged with the day-to-day running of the service. There were other multi-professional meetings that included mental health and proactive care meetings.
The service had considered its external stakeholders such as community teams and other organisations and had engaged with these services. It had considered its resources and pathways into these services such as primary care hubs, walk-in and minor injuries unit. The service had an Age UK vehicle that could be accessed by patients and could be used to support transporting people appointments.
Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. The service worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.
The service had a dedicated role to deliver services to people living in care homes to be able to provide continuity of care. We gained feedback from a local care home, who received care from the service, and who told us the services work well together. Another service commented “their commitment has been nothing short of excellent.’’
 

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.
Leaders of the service recognised their population were at risk of developing long-term health conditions at an earlier age and took steps to address this by promoting healthy living through connecting people to services such as Healthy Cornwall, the local authority’s public facing health improvement service
Staff focussed on identifying risks to people’ health. For example, people 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.
Leaders of the service recognised the challenges people faced with accessing the necessities such as food and money and how this affected how people accessed services. The service responded to this by developing a bespoke service including individualised support for benefit applications and other financial advice. The service had also created a dedicated support team to assist people with housing issues.
The service was engaged with other organisations and had developed projects such as a community food garden on the premises to promote own grown food produce.
The service’s social prescribing link worker gave examples of community groups and initiative that they could refer people to, to support healthier living. This included, locally grown food boxes and local volunteer enterprises who support with healthier eating.
There was various health promotion information available throughout the service to inform people about health and wellbeing topics.
 

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.
There was a programme of regular clinical audits of prescribing that focused on improving care and treatment. Prescribing audits took place including use of antibiotics, use of acne medicines and Hormone Replacement Therapy medicines. Findings from these audits were shared with staff teams through meetings. The service’s ‘Chronic Disease Management’ policy was based on national guidance for clinical staff to follow when managing long-term conditions’.
Our remote clinical searches also indicated people living with chronic kidney disease, hypothyroidism and diabetes had received the recommended required monitoring for their conditions.
However, the service did not always meet national targets for cervical screening and childhood immunisations. Leaders of the service were aware of the challenges they faced in this area and had put in place additional processes to increase uptake. For example, on the day calls were introduced to remind people of the appointment and confirm their attendance. The service also worked with local volunteer and community groups to raise awareness of cervical screening and childhood immunisations in deprived areas.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.
The service had improved how consent was obtained and recorded since our last inspection. Policies, protocols and guidance to support people to consent to care and treatment were in line with legislation. Staff could tell us the steps they would take to ensure people could consent to care and treatment and we saw evidence of people’s consent being recorded in clinical records.
Staff had completed Mental Capacity Act training. A staff member explained to us how they supported a person who lacks capacity to make decisions around their care using the principles from the Mental Capacity Act and the best interest process. Consent to care and treatment had been recorded such as when people were having a minor operation.
The service’s strategy highlighted the focus of shared decision-making and staff understood and applied relevant legislation relating to consent.
The service had a policy for do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions. We reviewed the records of DNACPR decisions for 5 people and found they were being maintained in line with relevant legislation.