Saltdean and Rottingdean 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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed.

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.

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. The 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed 86% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment, compared to 90% nationally.

Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. They 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. 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.

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. Our clinical searches showed the service was managing care and treatment appropriately in relation to asthma, diabetes, hypothyroidism and chronic kidney disease. For example, the remote clinical searches undertaken, showed people on Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDS) received timely monitoring.

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 service worked with other providers to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services. The service maintained registers of people with more complex needs. Staff were working with other teams and agencies to support people assessed as experiencing frailty and at risk of deterioration. We saw evidence of effective communication with specialist services and the local mental health teams and leaders we spoke with confirmed this.

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 people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, people 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.

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.

The service met national targets for screening and immunisations. 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 met the national targets for childhood immunisations with 95% coverage for the most recently published indicators (2024/25). This included the percentage of 5-year-olds who had received both booster immunisations for MMR.

The service had achieved 72% uptake for cervical screening for women aged 25-49 and 75% for women aged 50-64. This did not meet the national target of 80% for both groups. The nursing team followed up people who did not respond to their invitation to encourage improved uptake and had organised a walk-in cervical screening clinic to encourage uptake.

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, including the Mental Capacity Act. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and records we reviewed were made in line with relevant legislation.