Mayfield 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 75 (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. For example, in the GP Patient Survey, 81% of people that responded said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment. This was close to the ICS result which stood at 89% and the England average which was 87%.

Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community and 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 and could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

The service planned and delivered care and treatment in partnership with patients, taking into account what was important to them and what mattered most. Care was provided in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.
Systems were in place to ensure staff remained up to date with evidence-based guidance and relevant legislation. Clinical records reviewed demonstrated that care was delivered in accordance with current guidance, including recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations to support healthcare professionals in delivering high-quality, effective and cost-efficient care for patients.
 

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 service 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.

We saw evidence that the service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to drive continuous improvement. They exceeded the 95% target for childhood immunisations, achieving 96.3% for children aged one who had completed a primary course of immunisation for Diphtheria, Tetanus, Polio, Pertussis, Haemophilus influenza type b and Hepatitis B. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a rate of 95% for all routine childhood vaccinations, and practices achieving this level are considered to be performing well for this indicator and represent an example of good practice.
We also saw that the service did not always meet national targets for screening. For example, cervical cancer screening rates were below the 80% target, with 73.4% for patients aged 50 to 64 and 74.1% for those aged 25 to 49. Nevertheless, the provider continued to implement measures and explore strategies to improve uptake.
 

In most cases, the service informed people about their rights regarding consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Records also showed that staff had received the necessary chaperone training to ensure the safe delivery of care.
During our review of DNACPR records, we noted that one review had been overdue by six months and was only completed on the day of our inspection. Upon raising this concern, the service responded promptly by reviewing its process for recording and monitoring DNACPR decisions to ensure that future reviews were completed in a timely manner.