Watling Medical Practice

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.We did not assess all quality statements within this key question, as no concerns were identified in these areas at the previous assessment where they were judged to be met.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains good.

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.

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 national guidance, evidence-based good practice and required standards. Staff attended meetings, training, educational sessions and underwent regular appraisal. Quarterly audits for patients under hospital care were undertaken and monitoring information was checked before issuing prescriptions.

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.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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. Clinical reviews were undertaken and there was a system in place to ensure consistent monitoring. Actions were documented and reviewed. The practice exceeded national targets for childhood immunisations across all age ranges. The percentage of persons eligible for cervical screening were below expected targets for patients aged 25 to 49 years old (expected 80%, observed 67.5%) and aged 50 to 64 years old (expected 80%, observed 71.9%). The practice contacted patients who did not attend cervical screening and child immunisation programmes to encourage uptake.

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.