Biddlestone Health Group

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 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. 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.

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, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

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.

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 had not met some national targets for screening and immunisations, in relation to the June 2024 snapshot data. Cervical screening was at 70.4% for those aged 25 to 49. For those aged 50 to 64, the practice was meeting the target of 80% at 80.4% (target 80%). The practice had started to carry out an audit to identify if there were any further steps they could take to increase uptake. The practice provided us with unverified and unpublished data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework, which showed to date performance of 80.6% for the 25-49 age range and 94.8% for the 50-64 age range. However, these do not directly compare to the Public Health data used by CQC, as they are calculated differently. Similarly, some childhood immunisations were below the recommended national minimum of 90%. This included children aged 5 who had received immunisation for measles, mumps and rubella and children aged 2 who had received their immunisation for Haemophilus influenza type b (Hib) and Meningitis C (MenC) booster. The practice was taking appropriate steps to encourage uptake but needed to explore further the reasons behind the lower uptake.

From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that most people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance.

We found the service took appropriate action to invite patients for monitoring and review appointments. However, they had not implemented the policy they had in place to incentivise patients who repeatedly failed to attend or engage in these processes. For example, they had not implemented stoppage of repeat prescribing or reduced prescriptions (where safe to do so) to encourage patients to attend for appointments.

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.