Dr James Lawrie

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 monitored people’s care and treatment and supported them to live healthier lives. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and those with caring responsibilities. Staff told us that they have a structured, whole-team approach to prevention rather than relying on opportunistic care alone. Eligible patients were identified proactively through computer system-based recall. Staff confirmed that dedicated computer system templates for palliative and cancer care review were used to support people approaching the end of life.

The service supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity. We were told that long-term condition management was supported by a dedicated in-house phlebotomy clinic operating on Saturdays. Social prescribing was embedded within the multidisciplinary team on a model that prioritised signposting and self-sufficiency over dependency. Carers were identified at registration and offered targeted support, including flu vaccination.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment. However, outcomes were not always positive or consistent, and national targets for childhood immunisation and cervical screening were not met.

The most recent practice-level childhood immunisation data, covering the period to March 2026, showed coverage of approximately 80%. This was below the 90% national minimum coverage rate and the World Health Organisation’s recommended rate of 95%. Cervical screening data as at June 2024 showed coverage was below the 80% national target, at 56.4% for people aged 25 to 49 and 72.5% for people aged 50 to 64. Staff said more recent figures showed improvement, but the service did not provide data from its clinical system for independent verification during the assessment.

The practice had a structured approach to monitoring prevention and screening. We were told and reviewed a targets list that was circulated to clinicians each Monday and reviewed at the Tuesday clinical meeting, with childhood immunisation and cervical screening as separate agenda items. In November 2024, the practice introduced an ICB-supported pathway for children who were not fully immunised. We were told that a named coordinator was making up to 3 contact attempts and recorded informed refusals separately. We reviewed records showing 817 contacts with families, mainly to discuss concerns about side effects.

The service had appointed a cervical screening lead, adopted a supportive approach for people hesitant about screening and transferred responsibility for recalls to administrative staff.

Staff attributed low immunisation uptake to vaccine hesitancy rather than access barriers. They also said some patients included in the data had moved away without deregistering from the practice. They planned to investigate this further, but no action had yet been evidenced.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.