The Wrythe Green 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 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.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.
Feedback from people using the service was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that 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 care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present. 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.
 

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 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.
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 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 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 service 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 most recent national validated data for childhood immunisations was from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025. The most recent published national data for cervical screening was from 30 June 2024. These data sets showed that the service did not meet all of the national targets for childhood immunisations and cervical screening at that time.
During the assessment the service showed told us about changes they had made to the ways they contacted people and arranged appointments for childhood immunisations and cervical screening. The service had carried out an audit of women who did not respond to their cervical screening invitation to understand the reasons why and address any questions or misunderstandings.
The service showed us evidence that indicated it had improved take-up of childhood immunisations to meet or achieve close to the national targets, and that indicated that the service had met the targets for cervical screening. This evidence cannot be compared directly with the nationally validated data. 10 of the 47 women contacted booked an appointment following the intervention. 7 of the 47 women contacted (19%) said that they had already had a recent cervical screening test, carried out in another country. There is no option to exclude people from the recall list for this reason.
Following the audit, the service developed a more consistent system to contact people who did not respond to screening and immunisation invitations.
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. However, capacity and consent were not always clearly recorded.
Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. We looked at some examples of Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions. Although we were assured that the decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation, the level of detail recorded on the patient’s records did not make clear how and with whom the decisions were made.