Dr Rozewicz & Partners Also known as Simpson House 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 in July 2016, 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. However, we identified some variability in the quality of recorded medication reviews.

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. Reception 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. 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. However, our clinical review identified inconsistencies in the level of contextual detail recorded in some of the medication reviews we assessed. During the inspection, the provider reviewed these patients and completed structured medication reviews, ensuring that clear and comprehensive notes were documented.

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.

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. Most clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance, although we noted 2 patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) were overdue blood test monitoring. The provider contacted these patients and established that 1 patient had been abroad for over a year and had not requested any medication, and the other patient was under specialist care but had subsequently been booked for a blood test. A CKD protocol was already in place following a quality improvement project (in 2023/24) to improve screening, diagnosis and management. The service planned to re-discuss the protocol at the next clinical meeting to ensure that processes remained aligned and consistently followed.

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 people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, people at risk of developing a long-term condition (for example, chronic kidney disease) and those with caring responsibilities.

Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity. Staff informed us that the service along with the primary care network (PCN) offered lung cancer screening for people over 50 who smoke, offering direct access to a CT scan of the chest.

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.

There was a comprehensive programme of clinical audit and quality improvement activity to review the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided. From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance.

Whilst the practice team encouraged people to participate in population screening (e.g. the cervical screening programme) and the childhood immunisation programme, the practice was not meeting national screening targets in all these areas.

The uptake rate for cervical screening was 73% for eligible women aged 50 to 64 years old and 56% for eligible women aged 25 to 49 years old (national target 80%). The provider was achieving 82-91% childhood immunisation coverage for the 5 routine childhood vaccinations. The service had identified cervical screening and childhood immunisations as areas for improvement and implemented a range of measures to increase uptake. These included allocating dedicated staff to monitor people due or overdue screening/immunisations and following up with non-responders; strengthening oversight of the reminder and recall system; using a variety of communication methods to engage patients and their families; providing targeted education on the benefits of screening/immunisations; and aligning initiatives with public health campaigns and local community outreach programmes. While we observed evidence of these initiatives to increase uptake, their impact was not yet reflected in nationally reported data.

The practice’s commitment to monitoring and improving outcomes was demonstrated by its strong performance in providing NHS Health Checks over the past year.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

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.