Dr J Sullivan & Partners Also known as Moorside 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. This was a focused assessment, which meant we did not assess all quality statements. Our rating is determined from the findings of both this assessment and our previous assessment. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as outstanding, and this remains unchanged due to the focused nature of this assessment. However, updated quality statement scores have been issued where relevant.

This service scored 92 (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 focused on identifying risks to people’s health, including those with caring responsibilities. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity. Staff signposted and referred people to external services such as an ongoing chronic pain group and a dementia support group. Information on different services was also available to people on the practice website.

The service, in collaboration with its primary care network, had recently run a 5-week ‘breathing better’ programme for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, aimed at improving self-management and reducing exacerbation of the disease. Furthermore, in response to the high prevalence of heart failure within the local population, the service had made plans to hold a clinic session, supported by a consultant cardiologist, to support the review and optimisation of treatment for these patients.

The service offered a range of health checks, assessments, and reviews to help identify health needs. These included NHS health checks, and annual reviews for people with a learning disability.

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.

Effective invitation and recall procedures were in place to support people to receive necessary vaccinations and screening. The service had not met the recommended rate of 95% for all routine childhood vaccinations, however all 5 indicators were above 90%, as of March 2025.

The service performed in line with the England average in relation to some cancer screening programmes, including screening for breast and bowel cancer. The service’s cervical screening uptake rate in June 2024 was 76% for patients aged between 25 to 49 years (slightly below the 80% national target) and 85% for patients aged between 50 to 64 years (slightly above the 80% national target). Performance as of March 2025 was slightly higher than average for the number of new cancer cases treated resulting from an urgent suspected cancer referral, with the service attaining a detection rate of 57% compared to an expected rate of 54%.

The service took steps to improve uptake rates, including opportunistic discussions with patients and offering vaccinations and screening during routine patient contacts. Where appropriate, the service also referred families to a community child health worker.

Data provided to us by the service showed that in the last 12 months, they had completed 58% of annual reviews for people with a learning disability. The service advised that attempts had been made to engage the remaining patients, including repeated contact attempts and home visits.

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.