Dr RW Harrison & Partners Also known as Howden Medical 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 monitored people’s care and treatment and supported them to live healthier lives. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 79 (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 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.

The practice signposted patients to social prescribers who could provide services to help people access services within the community such as food banks, financial advice services and citizens advice.

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 stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

The practice monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive, consistent and fully met the expectations of people themselves.

Over the last few years, the practice had developed a system for vulnerable patients or those identified as requiring additional support. These patients were able to contact the practice and inform reception they were part of this programme; they would automatically be offered a same-day appointment with the duty doctor or receive a telephone call that day. This initiative came about after a palliative patient contacted the practice and was told they would need to call back later. Eligibility for the scheme was regularly reviewed and monitored. In some situations, this also applied to carers and partners of those patients identified.

The practice had developed a questionnaire and cover letter that was sent to patients with a learning disability before their reviews. The aim of the questionnaire was to introduce the nurse who would be conducting the review and help them understand what was important to the patient, how they wished to be communicated with and any extra support or reasonable adjustments that were needed. The practice audited this process and all key themes identified were positive. This included, better communication between patients, carers and other healthcare professionals, reduced anxiety before appointments, accurate recording of emergency and key contact information and a more enhanced person-centred care with consultations tailored to patient’s individual needs and preferences.

The practice had consistently met the World Health Organisation target of 95% for the uptake of childhood immunisations. The latest available data showed that the practice had achieved over 95% uptake for all 5 categories of childhood immunisations.

The practice performed better than the England average in relation to several cancer screening programmes, including screening for breast, bowel and cervical cancer. For example, the latest data available showed that the practice rate for breast screening was 83.9% compared with the national average of 70%. Similarly, they had a 78% uptake for bowel screening compared with the national average of 72%. For cervical screening the target is 80% and in the 25- to 49-year-old age group they had achieved 78.4% and in the 50- to 64-year-old age group they had achieved 82.1%.

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.