Hucclecote 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 staff understood their individual needs.

Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. 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 service 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 (a non-clinical professional who can link people with local community services to support their health and wellbeing).

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.

Staff received regular updates from leaders at the service. Where there were changes in process, staff were informed and involved in implementing changes.

As part of our assessment, a number of set clinical record searches were undertaken remotely. Clinical records we reviewed demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance. For example, we identified 16 people with hypothyroidism (a condition where the thyroid does not produce enough hormones) who had not received the appropriate monitoring in the last 18 months. We reviewed 5 of these records, 3 people had received the appropriate monitoring but 2 people had not been invited in for monitoring within this timeframe. When we highlighted this to the service, they immediately took action to contact these people.

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 results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey indicated people were confident staff had all the information they required. For example, 96% of responders said they felt the healthcare professional they saw at their last appointment had all the information they needed about the person. This was higher than the local average of 93% and a national average of 92%.

The service worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services. For example, they carried out a weekly round at a local care home to support people who lived there with a joined-up approach to their care.

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 reception and waiting areas displayed posters and leaflets with information designed to support people to make healthier choices.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to peoples’ 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.

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 service met national targets for screening and immunisations.

From the clinical notes we reviewed, we noted people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance. People with long-term conditions were offered an annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met in line with guidance. For example, our clinical searches identified 61 people with asthma who had 2 or more courses of rescue steroids in the last 12 months. We reviewed 5 of these records and found all 5 had been followed up and reviewed appropriately.

Outcomes of audits were discussed at staff meetings where findings were discussed and learning outcomes and changes were shared. We viewed a sample of clinical and non-clinical audits the service had carried out to improve outcomes for people. For example, an audit was carried out to look at improving the update of cervical screening for eligible people. Actions identified to increase uptake included having dedicated appointments for the screening, offering enhanced access appointments outside of usual working hours, improving the follow up of people that did not attend and have a visual display in waiting areas to promote the screening. A subsequent audit identified an increase in uptake and positive feedback from people using the service.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff followed policies and processes to support people to consent to care and treatment. Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. However, our review of people’s records showed consent around future planning and resuscitation was not always clearly evidenced. We viewed 5 records and found 3 were missing documentation to indicate if consent or capacity to make a decision was considered. We discussed this with the service who evidenced they were aware of shortfalls in this area and were in the process of reviewing systems and processes to ensure these decisions were appropriate, evidenced and reviewed when necessary.