Archived: Mersea Island Medical 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 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.

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.

We found the practice made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by monitoring and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them.

Feedback from people using the practice said they felt involved in their care and treatment and were confident that staff understood their individual needs. Feedback from residential home representatives was positive about the practice services provided to their residents in regard to their needs.

Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as their requirement for a longer appointment or a translator to be present for appointments.

The practice had systems to identify and prioritise care and treatment for people who were vulnerable. All people with a severe mental illness and all people with a learning disability were offered an annual health assessment.

Systems were in place to identify people with caring responsibilities at registration, opportunistically, and through self-reporting.

The practice planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. We saw they did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing.

Systems and regular training sessions were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. We found people’s clinical records demonstrated in most areas, care was provided in line with the current guidance.

Staff told us that the leaders provided opportunities for them to keep up to date with current guidelines, and changes to evidence-based care and treatment.

We observed from the clinical searches the practice delivered evidence-based care. There were arrangements to locate people who repeatedly failed to respond to invites for monitoring or reviews.

We saw the practice staff worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared the assessment of people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people only needed to tell their story once.

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.

Arrangements were in place for practice teams to support each other during periods of staff sickness, annual leave, and busy periods of the day within the practice.

People who provided feedback for this assessment had no specific views or concerns in this area.

The practice supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future need for treatment and support. People were supported to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice, and control.

People who provided feedback had no concerns in this area. Representatives from residential homes told us people in their care received general and specific health checks for example, preventative vaccinations, and reviewed care plans.

The practice was on track to achieve their target for NHS health checks offered to people aged 40 to 74 years. Healthy living information was available in the waiting room, around the practice and on the practice website. There was well-placed information in the waiting room that provided information about health and social services available to the local population.

Clinical staff described how they supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, this included stopping smoking and tackling obesity. Staff could refer people with social needs. Staff identified risks to peoples’ health, including people at risk of developing a long-term condition, those with caring responsibilities and people in the last 12 months of their lives.

The practice routinely monitored people’s care and treatment continuously, for positive, consistent patient outcomes, which met both clinical and people’s expectations.

Practice staff had worked to improve the uptake of childhood immunisation. All 5 indicators met the minimum expectation of 90% and 4 indicators were 97.4% which was above World Health Organisation (WHO) target of 95%.

The nursing team were working towards improving their cervical screening recall system as they had missed the 2 targets of 80% achieving 78.1% and 78.8% in the most recently published 2024 data available. However, unverified data viewed on site confirmed the target had been met. Arrangements were in place to follow up with people when they did not respond to an invitation or attend their appointment.

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 practice told people about their rights to consent, and respected peoples’ wishes when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Feedback provided by people we spoke with told us they felt at ease during consultations, were listened to, procedures were explained, and consent was requested. Results in the 2025 National GP Patient Survey confirmed that 89.2% of respondents stated that during their last appointment the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at listening to them, which was 3% above the national average.

Clinicians told us they supported people to make decisions, and where appropriate, assessed, and recorded people’s mental capacity and decisions as part of the consent process. Clinicians told us they always obtained consent from people and offered a chaperone where appropriate, which was recorded on the clinical system.

Posters were seen in the waiting room and attached to treatment room doors to remind people they could request a chaperone. Staff who carried out chaperone duties were trained for the role and had received an appropriate disclosure and barring (DBS) check.

Capacity and consent were recorded in peoples’ records. Residential homes confirmed they held the ‘Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT)’ advice was appropriate and were made in line with the relevant legislation.