Walkden 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 with 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.

During treatment the service effectively reviewed people’s 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 were aware of the needs of the local community. 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.

Templates were in place for clinical staff to use when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing.

The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions, and this was reviewed and audited, however, it was not always possible to identify the action taken as a result of audits. The provider needs to take action to ensure changes made as a result of audits are always clear.

Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

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.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

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, however systems for delegating clinical tasks to other services were inconsistent.

It was reported clinicians completed annual self-audits of their referrals; however, the process was not measurable and therefore lacked transparency.

However, concerns raised about referrals were dealt with on an individual basis and learning was not applied practice wide.

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 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 and the childhood immunisation program.

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.

The practice met most national targets for screening and exceeded or met all childhood immunisation targets. 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 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 clearly recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.