The Gables Medicentre

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 assessed all quality statements in the effective key question. 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 67 (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 and used digital flags within the care records system to highlight individual needs, such as a need for longer appointments or for a translator. 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 practice had a triage sheet to support reception staff to navigate patients effectively to the right clinician or emergency services.

Our remote clinical searches showed the service had systems in place to support the management of people with long-term conditions, including diabetes and asthma.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important 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 sampled demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

However, there were gaps found in and Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) and emergency medicines which did not follow evidence-based guidance and established good practice.

The practice worked well across teams and services to support patients. They made sure assessments of patients’ individual needs were shared and accessed in a timely manner when patients moved between different services.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver patient’s care, treatment, and support.

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 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 mostly 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.

Audits had been completed and identified improvements. The findings had been followed up to check improvements had been actioned.

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.

However, the practice was below national targets for cervical screening. The number of women aged 25 to 49 years who had an adequate screening test within the last 3.5 years was 67.3% against a national target of 80%. The number of women aged 50 to 64 years who had an adequate screening test within the last 5.5 years was 74.6% against a national target of 80%. These were figures for June 2024.

Also, the practice was below national targets for the percentage of children aged 2 who received immunisation for measles, mumps and rubella (one dose of MMR) between April 2024, and March 2025 was 81% against an expected national average of 95%.

The practice was involved in initiatives working with the Primary Care Network (PCN) in the community to improve uptake of cervical screening and child immunisations.

The practice was below the minimum expected national target of 95% for the percentage of children aged 1 who had completed a primary course of immunisation for Diphtheria, Tetanus, Polio, Pertussis, Haemophilus influenza type b (Hib), Hepatitis B (Hep B) (i.e. three doses of DTaP/IPV/Hib/HepB) between April 2024 and March 2025 at 91% uptake. This had slightly improved since the April 2023 to March 2024 figure.

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, and staff had completed training to support this. Through our access to the clinical system, we reviewed Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and found decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.