Ellergreen Medical Centre

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 67 (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 that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. National GP Patient Survey data showed that 94% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last appointment which was higher than the local average of 91% and national average of 90%. Additionally, 92% of patients felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment which was about the same as the local average of 93% and the national average of 92%.

Staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Reception 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. A hearing loop was available. 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 provider 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. Systems were in place to identify individuals with caring responsibilities. Patients with a learning disability were invited to attend an annual health assessment and long-term condition reviews were undertaken for those patients who were housebound.

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.

Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance, and we found that monitoring of patients with long-term conditions were in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations.

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 practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

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 patients’ health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, patients 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.

As part of our assessment, we reviewed the practice performance data for childhood immunisations and cervical cancer screening. The World Health Organisation recommends a rate of 95% for all routine childhood vaccinations and a national target of 80% across all age ranges for cervical cancer screening.

Published national data showed the percentage of children aged 5 who had received immunisation for measles, mumps and rubella (2 doses of MMR) was 77.3. The percentage of children aged 2 who had received immunisation for measles, mumps and rubella (1 dose of MMR) was 84%. The percentage of children aged 2 who had received their booster immunisation pneumococcal infection was 86%. The percentage of children aged 2 who had received their immunisation for haemophilus influenza type b and meningitis C was 86%. The percentage of children aged 1 who had completed a primary course of immunisation for diphtheria, tetanus, polio, pertussis, haemophilus influenza type b (Hib), and hepatitis B (Hep B) was 84.6%.

Published national data for the uptake of cervical cancer screening for women aged 25 to 49 years was 67.8%, and 67.3% for women aged 50-64 years.

The service was below expected targets in all age ranges for childhood immunisations and below expected targets for cervical cancer screening in all age ranges. The practice was working to improve the uptake of childhood immunisations and cervical cancer screening and gave us examples of how they were doing this which included patient education, contacting patients who had failed to attend their appointments, changing clinic times and promoting cervical screening awareness.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Best interest decisions were discussed with family members, carers and other professionals where appropriate, and staff described how people lawfully acting on a patient’s behalf were involved in planning and reviewing care. However, the provider could not demonstrate that all staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We discussed these findings during our onsite assessment and received assurance that a review of training would be initiated to ensure all staff had the knowledge and skills required to consistently apply the legislation and associated guidance in practice.

Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.