Archived: Collington 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

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.

This service scored 71 (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.

Staff told us how people were asked when they registered with the practice and/or during consultations their preferred method of communication and if they required support. They considered peoples wider health, care and well-being needs and worked with partners to support them to access appropriate services.

Patient records were appropriately coded and flagged to alert staff to individual’s needs and preferences. Vulnerable groups were proactively invited for health checks, such as carers and those with long term health conditions.

Feedback from people using the service was positive. People felt involved in assessments 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 in 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. 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.

Clinical staff received support and supervision from experienced clinicians to ensure their decisions were reflective of national legislation, evidence-based good practice and required standards.

There were established and effective systems in place to identify, share and embed best practice. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance. We found the service had effectively reduced the number of people with long term conditions requiring further assessment. We reviewed the care of a sample of patients with chronic kidney disease, asthma, diabetes and hypothyroidism and found all had been appropriately assessed and monitored.

Regular informal discussions and formal meetings were held with staff to discuss clinical practice, changes to ways of working and systems and processes for clinical referrals and review of results.

Staff monitored administrative processes such as the timeliness of cancer referrals.

Management meetings were held. Risks were documented for discussion for example, changes to ways of working.

Staff worked effectively across teams and services to support people. Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support. We found clinical records were detailed and regarding assessments and contained supporting rationales for actions taken. There were established and effective systems in place to ensure the timely and appropriate management of referrals. Meetings were held with partner services to support people to access and/or move between services.

Staff supported people to manage their health and wellbeing so they could maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff signposted people and provided advice and guidance to support people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. For example, promoting community health provision for people partially sighted to access support, services and aids and equipment.

People were invited and supported to be involved in regularly reviewing their health and wellbeing needs where appropriate and necessary. People were involved in regularly monitoring their health, including health assessments and checks where appropriate and necessary with health and care professionals.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to peoples’ health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, people 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.

Staff told us they routinely monitored people’s care, with established recall systems, booking follow up consultations and requesting additional interventions such as blood tests to continuously improve people’s health outcomes.

There were established and effective systems in place to identify and monitor people’s outcomes. This was achieved through formal quality outcome frameworks used by local commissioners of healthcare to inform conversations regarding performance. For example, the clinical meeting minutes from March 2025 included discussions on National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on urinary tract infections in women and clinical assessment tools.

We found pathology results were reviewed and actioned in a timely manner and people were supported to understand and manage their individual needs.

National targets for screening and immunisations were not always met. Data from the UK Health Security Agency showed the practice did not meet some national targets for screening and immunisations. They achieved 81.5% to 88.3% for child immunisations which was below the national target of 90%. However, cervical screening rates had improved from 72% to 75% which was below the national target of 80% to currently achieving 83% to 87% (unverified data) placing them above the national target.

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. For example, people received educational information and monitoring for long term health conditions such as diabetes. Consent to care and treatment

The service had established policies and procedures in place to ensure staff knew and observed best practice when recording and delivering care. Staff understood, applied and adhered to Gillick competency (often used to assess whether a child is mature enough to consent to treatment), Fraser guidelines (used specifically for children requesting contraceptive or sexual health advice and treatment) and the Mental Capacity Act.

Staff told us they received training in understanding and supporting people to make informed decisions. Consent was sought on separate occasions in accordance with best practice prior to some treatments to ensure people had time to understand, consider and ask questions about the procedure. For example, consent was appropriately obtained or documented prior to administering vaccinations to vulnerable people.

Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.