Lockwood 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 has stayed 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 practice made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care,wellbeingand communication needs with them.

Reception staff understood the needs of the local population and used digital alerts within patient records toidentifyindividual requirements, such as the need for alonger appointment. Staff assessed and reviewed people’s health, care and wellbeing needs through routine reviews and monitoring. The provider had systems in place toidentifypatients with previously undiagnosed conditions and to ensure staff had access to current evidence-based guidance and legislation.

Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed the practice was slightly below national averages in some areas. For example, 85% of patients felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last appointment, compared with a national average of 92%. In addition, 84% of patients reported they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment, compared with local and national averages of 91%.

The CQC GP Specialist Advisor completed remote clinical searches to review the management of patients with long-term conditions, including asthma, chronic kidney disease, diabetes and hypothyroidism. Overall, the practice demonstrated effective management of these patient groups. However, we found that some patients prescribed rescue steroids for asthma had not always received follow-up within the expected time frame. Leaders told us they had recently introduced a standard operating procedure to strengthen asthma exacerbation follow-up and were monitoring compliance with this process.

The practice 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, although a minor issue relating to asthma follow-up had been identified elsewhere during this assessment.

We saw that systems and processes were in place to ensure staff remained up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. New guidance, complex cases and learning were discussed during weekly clinical meetings and shared with staff where appropriate. Staff had access to training and development opportunities to support the delivery of effective care.

Staff told us they kept up to date through training, meeting attendance and professional discussions. They also told us leaders were supportive of their professional development and ongoing learning.

The practice 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 care, treatment and support. The practice worked with other services, including Primary Care Network (PCN) staff, to support continuity of care. For example, the PCN pharmacy team worked alongside practice staff to support medicines optimisation and reviews.

The practice had systems in place to monitor referrals, including patients referred under the two-week wait cancer pathway. The provider also worked collaboratively with other healthcare professionals through multidisciplinary team meetings. Leaders told us that health visitors attended these meetings where appropriate.

The practice supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The practice supported people to live healthier lives and, where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Information about a range of health conditions and support services was available through the practice website and within the practice environment.

The practice maintained a register of carers. At the time of the assessment, 158 patients had been identified as carers, representing 3.8% of the practice population. Carers were coded on the clinical system to help ensure they were identified and offered appropriate support.

In 2025/26, the practice had 20 patients on its learning disability register, 15 patients had received an annual health check. The practice told us that the remaining patients had been contacted on multiple occasions and invited to attend for review. Staff described how patients were supported to become familiar with the practice environment and were offered longer appointments where required to help meet their individual needs.

The practice had 1008 patients eligible for an NHS Health Check and completed 114 reviews during the 12 months. The practice monitored uptake and took action to encourage attendance where appropriate, including hiring a Nursing associate to carry out health checks.

The practice participated in the Community Pharmacy Consultation Service, supporting patients to access the most appropriate care and advice.

The practice did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The practice had systems in place to monitor patient outcomes and recalled patients for reviews and preventative healthcare interventions. Staff we spoke with were able to describe the systems used to monitor and review patients and understood their role in this process. The practice was supported by a centralised team who helped monitor performance relating to screening and immunisation programmes and worked with the practice to develop improvement plans.

Cervical screening uptake was 61.5% for patients aged 25–49 and 72.5% for patients aged 50–64, both below the national targets of 80%. Leaders told us this was partly due to limited capacity, as the practice nurse had not yet completed cervical screening training. As a result, screening clinics were supported by a nurse from another provider location. The practice had taken steps to improve uptake through community engagement and awareness sessions. Bowel cancer screening uptake was 77.9% (148 of 190 eligible patients); however, breast screening uptake was 53.1% (288 of 542 eligible patients).

Performance for childhood immunisations was also below the recommended minimum uptake for several indicators, with one indicator achieving 78%. Leaders had identified a barrier to patients being booked in, this being parents being able to leave work to bring their children to appointments. To help with this, the practice had introduced Saturday clinics.

The practice told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of consent and were able to explain how consent was sought and recorded in line with relevant legislation and guidance. Staff understood the importance of considering capacity when providing care and treatment and were able to describe how decisions were made in the best interests of patients who lacked capacity.

We reviewed five Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) records. Four records had been completed appropriately and contained the necessary documentation. In one record, the ReSPECT form was not available within the patient record. The practice had already identified this issue and maintained records of the actions taken to obtain and upload a copy of the document.

The practice had systems in place to monitor the completeness of DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) and ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) documentation. Monthly searches were undertaken to identify records requiring review, and staff checked documentation to ensure information was complete and readily accessible. The practice was able to demonstrate a clear process for managing any issues identified through these checks.