Lawrence Hill Health Centre

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 to good.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal, cultural and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

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 practice made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People presenting with symptoms which could indicate serious illness were followed up in a timely way. We reviewed the appointment diary and saw appointments were available to book the same day for urgent appointments and in the following days for non-urgent appointments.

Feedback from people using the practice was positive about their needs being met. People felt involved in assessments of their needs and were confident that staff understood their needs. The 2025 National GP Patient Survey indicated 85% of people were involved as much as they want to be in decisions about their care and treatment. This was slightly lower than local and national averages of 91%.

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 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 the care coordinator who provided information and referrals to local community services.

The practice had a named-GP process for frequent attenders and people with complex needs to streamline appointments and make the practices’ response to people more efficient.

The practice 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 practice 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 practice supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The practice supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to peoples’ health such as people at risk of developing a long-term condition. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health such as tackling obesity and social isolation through offering a mindful movement (gentle exercise) group and a gardening group.

The care coordinator took a holistic approach to supporting people and met with people to get a better understanding of their needs. They encouraged people to self-manage their health and signposted people to services which could support them. This enabled people to become more confident and knowledgeable about what actions they could take to improve their health.

Adults with learning disabilities were invited in for an annual review. Their diet and lifestyle were reviewed, and they were referred to local community groups if necessary.

The practice 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 when possible.

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. People with long-term conditions were offered an effective annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met in line with guidance.

Verified data for cervical screening available at the time of this assessment was from June 2024 and showed the practice was not meeting the national uptake target of 80%. The practice submitted unverified data showing 82% of eligible people aged 25 to 49, and 90% of those aged 50 to 64, had taken up the offer of cervical screening.

The practice had not achieved nationally set targets for the uptake of childhood immunisations. They were aware of this and were taking steps to increase uptake by sending text messages, letters, phone calls, translating information into alternative languages and offering opportunistic vaccinations. They had also been involved with setting up and attending a parent and baby group where they could hold conversations about immunisations in an informal setting.

The practice 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.