Dr RC Rautray's Practice

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 monitored people’s care and treatment and supported them to live healthier lives. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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 focused on identifying risks to people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and those with caring responsibilities. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

The service did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure outcomes were positive, consistent or the expectations of people themselves.

The service had not met the majority of national targets for the uptake of childhood immunisations, with most being below the 90% minimum. In most cases, the most recently verified data showed the uptake was below the minimum expected levels. The latest published data showed that 51% of 25- to 49-year-olds and 62% of 50- to 64-year-olds had been adequately screened for cervical cancer, against a target of 80%. The practice manager told us this was due to their patient population.

The service provided us with 3 clinical audits, but these were not dated. They were single cycle audits that did not show evidence of improvement. The audits showed some low levels of compliance.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.