Wellington Road 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 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.

Overall, 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 mainly positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. Care home representatives told us their residents registered with the practice received an annual review to ensure their ongoing needs were assessed and managed appropriately.

Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Digital flags were used within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments.

Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. We saw 1877 patients were recorded as having had a medication review in the previous 3 months. Reviews we sampled showed the documentation of reviews could be improved, which was acknowledged by the provider. The provider had 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 social prescribers.

The National GP Survey results found 96% of people who responded to the survey were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. This was above the national average of 91%.

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. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance and clinical staff with spoke with shared examples of how they kept up to date with any changes in practice.

The service worked well 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. The practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

Care home representatives told us they good rapport with all professionals at the practice enabling them to provide a good quality service to people using the service.

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. Our clinical searches showed 5 patients with potentially missed diabetes of Diabetes. Of the 5 records we sampled we found these patients were identified and generally well managed. The practice had also carried out their own audit of missed diagnosis of Diabetes, which demonstrated significant improvement over time with some further improvements required.

The practice told us in 2025 they had completed 737 NHS Health checks. The practice had access to 2 social prescribers employed by the primary care network (PCN). They supported patients and could refer them to national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity services available through the local authority. Patients were able to monitor their own blood pressure readings in the waiting area with equipment donated by a patient. Menopause, women’s health and Sleepstation services were available through the primary care network (PCN).

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.

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 met the national target for childhood immunisations, with 4 of the 5 indicators exceeding the World Health Organisation (WHO) target of 95%. Staff followed up when childhood immunisations were missed with phone calls to ensure parents had the opportunity to discuss this. Uptake of cervical screening was compatible with the national target of 80%. The cancer care coordinator from the primary care network (PCN) had an oversight of cytology and breast screening lists and ran regular searches to help monitor patients.

The practice told us they had 44 patients registered with a learning disability, of whom 38 patients were eligible for a learning disability review. As of March 2026, 35 reviews had been completed in the previous 12 months with a further 2 patients booked to attend.

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 recorded. The practice had 145 patients coded as having a Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT). These plans documented people’s wishes in the event of emergency care and supports personalised care planning, particularly for patients nearing end of life or at risk of deterioration. We sampled 5 patient records and found all were coded and forms were scanned onto 4 of the 5 patient records. The practice had recently carried out an audit of 20 care home patients with ReSPECT forms in order to assess the completeness and quality of the documentation and identify areas for improvement. This identified that the quality of documentation was inconsistent with key legal and clinical components frequently missing, particularly around capacity assessments. Documents were also completed via multiple sources, for example hospitals. A follow up audit had since been undertaken and the practice were actively taking action to improve the documentation, which had been recorded on their quality improvement plan.

Care home representatives told us do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions were in place and reviewed with the person and their family members where appropriate. This ensured decisions were person-centred and reflected the resident’s wishes.