Dr Philip West Also known as Boundaries 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 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 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 did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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 people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and those with caring responsibilities. The service offered a range of health promotion provisions and supported people to make healthy lifestyle choices. For example, we observed the service had blood pressure monitors in the waiting areas to empower people to manage their own assessments. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health such as smoking cessation, weight management, and screening services. There were also systems to follow up on missed appointments for health checks and vaccinations. The service had access to a social prescriber as part of a local primary care network (PCN), which connected and supported people with activities, groups and services that improved their health and wellbeing.

Outcomes for people were in line with local and national averages, such as meeting national minimum targets for childhood immunisations and several cancer screening programmes, including screening for breast, bowel and cervical cancer. The service regularly monitored Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) indicators and demonstrated they had carried out audits to improve clinical quality. For example, the service carried out an audit in relation to the uptake in NHS Health Checks. The service increased the delivery of NHS Health Checks, completing 927 assessments in 2023, 317 in 2024 and 84 in 2025. Over the same period, eligible people reduced from 1,408 to 333 people, demonstrating proactive management of unmet preventative need and sustained support for healthier living. This meant people were either treated for conditions that had not previously been diagnosed, or were not eligible following assessment due to the NHS five‑year recall process or their age.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive, consistent and met the expectations of people themselves.

The service had a schedule of quality improvement audit activity and routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided. For example, there was a clear plan for conducting clinical and non-clinical audits. Outcomes and learning were shared with staff to ensure future recommendations were implemented.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.