• Doctor
  • GP practice

Park Green Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Waters Green Medical Centre Sunderland Street, Macclesfield, Cheshire, SK11 6JL (01625) 429555

Provided and run by:
Park Green Surgery

Assessment report published 24 April 2025

On this page

Effective

Good

26 March 2025

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent, however, the practice did not meet national targets for immunisations or cervical screening.

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.

Assessing needs

Score: 3

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 positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. 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, we found some staff had not been using the templates. The practice was aware of this, and additional training had been put in place for those staff members. The provider 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.

Delivering evidence-based care and treatment

Score: 3

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.

How staff, teams and services work together

Score: 3

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.

Supporting people to live healthier lives

Score: 3

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.

Monitoring and improving outcomes

Score: 2

The service monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, but they did not always meet clinical expectations. The practice did not meet national targets for immunisations or cervical screening based on the most current verified data from 2023. Cervical screening rates were below the 80% target. Child immunisation rates were below the 95% target. During the assessment the practice provided unverified data stating they were above the 80% target for cervical screening for 2024/2025. From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in best practice, 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. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded for minor surgery.