The Armada Family 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.
At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating has remained 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 had systems and processes to ensure people’s care and treatment was assessed and their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs were reviewed.
Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. They 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 such as a learning disability health review.
Results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed only 79% of respondents felt the healthcare professional had all the information they needed about them, compared with local and national averages of 92%. However, results from the service’s FFT survey in January 2026 showed 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 needs. Comments from people included, ‘The clinician I saw was kind and very informative. Made me feel at ease about my condition’ and ‘the doctor was very polite explained everything clearly how to use the medication he prescribed how long for’. Another person spoke positively about how the service supported a relative who had additional needs.
 

The service did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Care and treatment were not always delivered in line with national guidance. For example, 53 people had experienced an acute exacerbation of asthma in the last 12 months. A review of 5 records found 3 people had not received the appropriate follow-up to assess the effectiveness of steroid treatment. Although the provider took action following the inspection and completed reviews, systems to ensure timely follow-up in line with guidance were not embedded.

 

Staff 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 service worked with other services to ensure continuity of care.
Regular staff meetings were used to share any changes across the service. Some staff told us they were unable to attend these meetings due to either the time of the meeting or having to see people in clinics. There were also meetings to discuss concerns which had a multidisciplinary approach, such as health visitors attending safeguarding meetings.
The service worked with other local GP services as well as community teams including the district nurses. Staff and leaders maintained partnership arrangements with local services such as community pharmacists, the palliative care team, and a local substance misuse service.
To further improve the way in which services work together, the service utilised technology to share system access with teams they worked with, such as the mental health team and the district nursing team.
 

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 working at the service could refer people to a social prescriber (A social prescriber helps people find community support for social or practical problems affecting their health). The service also had access to a health coach (A health coach helps people make healthy lifestyle changes, such as improving diet, exercise, sleep, or managing long‑term conditions, by setting goals and building confidence to manage their own health).
Staff focussed on identifying risks to people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, people at risk of developing a long-term condition and those with caring responsibilities. For example, the service developed a 'start well to stay well' group session for patients with pre-diabetes. 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. People with long-term conditions were offered an annual review with a dedicated clinician to check their health and medicines needs were being met in line with guidance.
Our clinical searches found that people with diabetes had received appropriate monitoring. The service had also achieved the average national uptake targets for 4 of 5 childhood immunisations according to data published in 2025. The service had not achieved the national uptake target of 95% for immunisations for children aged 5, with uptake at 88.8%, but remained above the national average of 84.5%. The service was taking actions to improve immunisation uptake, including engagement with local schools and nurseries, as well as a dedicated role within the service targeting the follow‑up of unvaccinated children.

Cervical screening available at the time of this assessment, from June 2024, showed the service was not meeting the national uptake target of 80%. The service submitted more recent unverified data showing 74% of eligible people aged 25 to 49, and 78% of those aged 50 to 64, had taken up the offer of cervical screening.
The service was aware it had not met all of the national targets for screening and immunisations and was working to improve these. The service had applied to undertake a cervical screening improvement project, which aimed to reach people whose first language was not English. The service also offered early morning, late night, and Saturday clinics to encourage people to attend, as well as a opportunistic appointments.
 

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.
Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent, including the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.