Peartree Practice

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 practices 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.

The practice 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 practice 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 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. For example, the practice had created a 7-day home blood pressure monitoring form for patients to record their blood pressures. The form also gave advice about how to use the blood pressure machine and guidance should medical advice need to be sought. Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber. The social prescriber hosted various community groups for example social blend café for patients who need help and support; Memory Cafe for patients and carers. The PPG have also provided telephone contact with home based elderly patients providing opportunities to feedback issues to the practice.

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. Staff took steps to ensure they prescribed medicines appropriately to optimise care outcomes. For example, the provider had undertaken an audit for antibiotic prescribing. The provider found there were 3 areas for improvement. The first being the length of days antibiotics are being given; the dose and frequency of antibiotic prescribing and ensuring the use of prescribing guidelines are followed. The actions from this were to plan further education within the practice and to re audit in 3-6 months’ time. Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation.

The practice worked well across teams and practices 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 practices. For example, the practice liaised with the local hospice where patients were receiving support. The practice had kept up to date with patient summarising to ensure accurate information was available for clinicians. There were processes to monitor and manage care when patients were moved between practices such as after referral to secondary care, or admission to hospital. A review of the practice’s clinical system indicated patient test results were being managed in a timely manner to inform future care and treatment planning. 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 practices to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other practices.

The practice supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff focussed on identifying risks to patients’ health, including those receiving end of life care patients at risk of developing a long-term condition and those with caring responsibilities. For example, staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including smoking cessation programmes and monthly health promotion campaigns such as cervical screening, with a focus on patients in high-risk groups. The practice was also recognised as veteran-friendly and Learning Disability-friendly. Staff prioritised identifying health risks, including patients in the last 12 months of their lives, those at risk of developing long-term conditions, and patients with caring responsibilities.

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.

The practice wasn’t meeting the national targets for Measle Mumps and Rubella and cervical screening. The practice ran frequent audits and searches to monitor and improve the uptake of these immunisations. The practice told us they recognised this and were planning to undertake further community promotional awareness. From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used the practice experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance.

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. Consent forms were reviewed and examples of forms for patients to read and sign were seen. One example of verbal consent was viewed, and this was clearly noted in the patient notes; another for a cervical smear and it also had been recorded that a chaperone was offered which was declined.