Aughton 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 focussed on identifying risks to people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and those with caring responsibilities. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including referring patients for the appropriate clinic in the community such as stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

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.

Patients were encouraged to attend cancer screening and take up vaccinations offered as part of national programmes; The practice had met targets for childhood vaccinations. However, the most recently verified data showed the practice was slightly below target for the percentage of persons eligible for cervical cancer screening who were screened adequately within 3.5 years for persons aged 25 to 49 (74%, expected rate 80%).

They had established systems to monitor non‑attendance for both immunisation and screening appointments.

During our assessment of the service, we noted that the practice had undertaken a number of audits with a view to improving outcomes for patients.

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.