Ringmead Medical Group

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

During the assessment we reviewed evidence remotely, spoke with staff, completed remote clinical searches of the practice’s clinical system and undertook observations while on site. We also reviewed feedback provided to CQC by people that had used the service. We found the following:

Medication reviews had improved and now contained complete information about what had been reviewed, whether monitoring was up to date and whether medicines remained appropriate. Care provided to patients with long-term conditions had improved. Patients were informed of their diagnosis and risks associated with their conditions to maximise their health.

Patients prescribed medicines requiring monitoring were recalled in line with national guidance.

Patients’ needs were assessed to support them to maximise the effectiveness of their care and treatment. Systems and processes existed within the practice to highlight these needs to staff so they could support patients.

We found clear examples of how the practice identified vulnerable patients that required additional support and found evidence of the support the practice offered.

A programme of clinical audit operated within the practice to maximise the effectiveness of care.

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 found the practice had systems and processes to ensure patients’ needs were assessed. This included their communication needs and any reasonable adjustments which supported them to maximise the effectiveness of their care. A communication aid designed by the practice to support non-verbal patients highlighted the practice’s patient centred approach to care. This had been developed recently to support a patient whose communication needs had been identified by the practice after their discharge from hospital.

Processes existed to ensure patients who did not speak English as their first language could access translation services and staff we spoke with all confirmed this was available and they knew the process to arrange this for people using the service. Staff also told us the practice had clear processes to highlight or flag specific needs of patients such as interpretation to ensure patients were supported appropriately.

We also heard of how the practice had delivered educational sessions to children in schools regarding healthy hearts with the aim that this information would reach parents and carers.

We found the practice had made improvements and now followed national guidance and best practice when prescribing medicines and supporting patients with long-term conditions. For example, our remote clinical searches found the practice had embedded systems and processes to identify patients prescribed medicines which required monitoring. The clinical team was supported by care coordinators who ran regular searches to identify patients requiring monitoring and they sent invitations and reminders to patient to book these monitoring tests. Our remote clinical searches found evidence that this process was embedded and operating consistently.

The provider had improved the quality of care for patients with long-term conditions including asthma and diabetes. For example, our remote clinical searches identified 11 patients that potentially had a missed diagnosis of diabetes. However, our GP SpA reviewed a random sample of 5 patients and found all the patient’s medical records were accurately coded and none had diabetes.

Our GP SPA also reviewed a sample of 5 patients that had been prescribed 2 or more courses of rescue steroids in the last 12 months due to an exacerbation of their asthma. All patients had been assessed correctly at the time of the exacerbation, had been followed up afterwards and had received reviews of their condition with care plans in place.

Our GP SPA also reviewed a sample of 5 medicine reviews completed in the last 3 months and found the quality had improved since our last assessment. We found the review had considered all medicines, that dosages were appropriate and that monitoring was up to date.

We found the provider used audits to drive improvements in the quality of care for patients. For example, the frequency of cytology auditing had been increased to ensure any patients needing to be rebooked were identified promptly and the risk of delays in their care was avoided.

Overall, we were assured these changes had improved the quality of care for patients and these processes were embedded in the practice.

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.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.