Moorfield House 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

This was a focused assessment, which meant we did not assess all quality statements. Our rating is determined from the findings of both this assessment and our previous assessment(s). At our last assessment, we rated this key question as outstanding and this remains unchanged due to the focused nature of this assessment. However, updated quality statement scores have been issued where relevant.

This service scored 92 (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.

The provider’s website and practice environment offered patients access to information on a range of health conditions and support services. Information for carers was available within both waiting areas to help raise awareness of available support.

The service maintained a register of carers, with 202 patients identified, equating to 1.7% of the patient population. Carers were coded on the system and supported by a dedicated carers’ champion, who oversaw the register, coordinated recalls and ensured carers were offered appropriate support.

The service had 39 patients on the learning disability register, and had completed 90% (35 patients) of annual health checks for this group in 2025/26. A learning disability champion was in place, and patients were offered longer appointments where required to support their individual needs.

The service utilised a Primary Care Network-led community wound care service, which supported improved continuity of care for patients requiring ongoing wound management.

The service supported 3 care homes, as well as 1 short-stay dementia care home and 1 residential care home. All care homes received regular weekly ward rounds delivered by a named GP, with access to urgent and same-day appointments when required. The dementia care home received enhanced input, including twice-weekly ward rounds from a lead GP. The lead GP also attended weekly multidisciplinary team meetings and carried out three-monthly review meetings to ensure coordinated and proactive care planning.

Performance for NHS health checks was below expected levels, with 3.7% of 2,886 eligible patients receiving a check in 2025/26. The service was aware of this and had identified reasons for the underperformance, with plans in place to improve uptake over the following year.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve outcomes and ensure these met the needs of the population.

The service’s cervical screening uptake rate was 77% for women aged 25–49 and 82.1% for women aged 50–64. The service provided unverified data indicating improved performance, with uptake rates of 80.3% and 86.6% respectively. The service had a continued focus on improving cervical screening uptake, including the use of recall systems and targeted engagement.

Breast screening uptake for 2025/26 was 73.1%, which was above the national average of 70.4%. The practice’s bowel cancer screening uptake was 77.4%, which was above the national average of 71.8%. The service had consistently maintained bowel screening uptake rates.

Overall performance in childhood immunisations was good, with all but 1 indicator reaching the 90% minimum target. This related to 1 patient, the service also had a vaccination lead who was actively following up patients.

Staff described the systems used to recall and review patients, and the service had identified quality improvement priorities for the year, with plans in place to support continued improvement in population health outcomes.

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.