O'Flynn - Hampton Wick Also known as Hampton Wick Surgery

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

EFFECTIVE: 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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

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.

At our last inspection our clinical searches showed that some patients who required follow up appointments and monitoring for long-term conditions had not been sufficiently monitored to ensure their safety. Immediately following the inspection, the practice acted to put monitoring in place.

At this assessment we looked at medical records for several patient groups, including those being prescribed medicines requiring regular monitoring. We found evidence that patients were receiving treatment and, where necessary, monitoring in line with national guidelines.

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 the need for translation services. Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. 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. For example, clinicians used templates to ensure they followed best practice in monitoring of patients with long-term conditions.

Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

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. For example, there were monthly multi-disciplinary Team meetings (MDTs) held between clinicians from the practice and a range of stakeholder organisations, including community teams and out of hours providers to share information and raise any concerns.

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 such as community services, commissioners, and voluntary organisations 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.

At our last inspection we found:

• Four out of 5 child immunisation indicators that CQC regularly looked at were marginally below the 90% minimum target.
• The performance for cervical cancer screening for women aged 25 – 49 and 50 – 64 was below the England target of 80% uptake.

At this assessment we found:

• None of the childhood immunisations indicators that CQC regularly looked at were flagged as below the minimum 90% target. Staff we spoke to acknowledged the difficulties of ensuring children received the immunisations. The practice had a dedicated administrator who contacted patients’ parents or guardians to remind offer appointments. Where necessary, the nursing team called directly to invite and discuss any concerns parents or guardians might have.

• Performance for cervical screening remained below the England target of 80% uptake for women in both age groups, 25-49 and 50-64. The practice had a dedicated administrator to offer appointments and follow up on non-attendance. The practice told us that there were some groups who refused to comply. These included groups who received screening outside of the NHS, either abroad or within the private medical sector. Those groups were less likely to update the practice on the outcome of screening tests.

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.

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. A clinician told us that if there was doubt as to someone’s capacity, this was also recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.