Drs Sells and Dr Kyaw Also known as Lyngford Park 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.

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 the assessment of their needs and felt confident staff understood their individual needs.

Our remote clinical searches on long-term conditions showed that the service provided necessary monitoring for people diagnosed with chronic kidney disease stage 4 or 5 (more advanced stages) or an underactive thyroid. We reviewed patients diagnosed with diabetes who had a HbA1c of 75mmol/mol of above. We reviewed 5 out of 71 patients and all had received appropriate care and treatment, including an annual diabetic review and a medicine review to assess their needs. (a high average blood sugar level indicates poor diabetic control with increased risk of complications).

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.

Clinical staff had access to relevant national guidance, as well as local policies/guidelines and used this information to help ensure that people's needs were met. Clinical records demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance. Staff told us they received regular updates on current good practice and standards from leaders at the service.

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. Staff worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services. We received positive feedback from people about timely and efficient referrals to other services for ongoing care. People were encouraged to book appointments with their named GP where possible to promote continuity of care. One person highlighted, “I've already seen my own doctor several times and if I've had to be seen by an alternate doctor then he or she has made me aware that my own doctor will be informed and updated.”

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.

The service identified people who may need extra support and directed them to relevant services. This included people in the last 12 months of their lives, people at risk of developing a long-term condition and those with caring responsibilities. The service’s website contained information and links to other sources of information to support people in making healthier choices, such as a balanced diet and stopping smoking.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They had recently adjusted their service to improve uptake of national initiatives to improve positive outcomes. However, the impact of these adjustments were not yet embedded.

National data (2023-2024) showed the service had achieved the 90% minimum uptake for 4 out of the 5 indicators for childhood immunisations. The remaining indicator was at 89%. The service reviewed the data recently and developed a plan for further improvement. This included encouraging parents or carers of children to still attend for their appointment even if their child felt unwell, as many could still be immunised following further clinical assessment. The service changed to offer immunisation appointments on more days of the week to improve accessibility. This helped to promote immunisation uptake and reduce missed appointments.

Latest national data (2024) showed that 68% of eligible people aged 25-49 years and 77% of eligible people aged 50-64 years had received cervical screening, which was below the national target of 80%. The service implemented an improvement plan to address this. This included amending their recall system to allow people using the service to self-book screening appointments. The service increased their capacity by employing new staff and training existing staff to carry out cervical screening. They also adjusted the appointment duration which increased the number of appointments available. The improvement work had been recently implemented and was ongoing. Unverified data at the time of assessment showed an uptake of 72% for both age groups, which was a rise for the younger age group but a decrease for the older age group.

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. Policies, protocols, and guidance were followed to support people to consent to care and treatment. Clinicians supported people to make decisions.