Ironbridge 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 monitored people’s care and treatment and supported them to live healthier lives. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 75 (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.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

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 people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and those with caring responsibilities. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health. For example, the practice offered patients over the age of 45 health checks at weekends.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive, consistent and met the expectations of people themselves.

The service performed better than the England average in relation to breast and bowel cancer screening programmes. However, uptake for cervical screening (June 2024) was below the national target of 80% for both indicators. The number of eligible women aged 25 to 49 years old who had an adequate cervical screening within the last 3.5 years was 78%, and 75% for eligible women aged 50 to 64 years. The practice had taken steps to improve their uptake by offering appointments on a Saturday. They also sent regular reminders and followed up patients who had failed to attend screening.

The service had met national targets for childhood immunisation uptake in 3 of the 5 childhood indicators. They had met the minimum national target of 90% in one indicator but at 84.3% were below the minimum target for children aged 5 who had received 2 doses of immunisation for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR).

The practice provided unverified data which indicated that uptake had improved since the data used in our assessment was compiled. The practice also followed up with parents and carers when children did not attend for their scheduled vaccinations.

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.