Queenstown Road Medical 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 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 71 (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 patients’ care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Feedback from patients using the service was mostly positive. Patients 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. Reception staff 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 patients’ health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of patients’ wider health and wellbeing. The provider had effective systems to identify patients with previously undiagnosed conditions. Staff could refer patients with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

The service planned and delivered patients’ 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.

The service worked well across teams and services to support patients. They made sure patients only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when patients moved between different services.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver patients’ 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 took part in a PCN initiative to ascertain whether a cohort of randomly selected patients felt they had been involved in decisions regarding their care. 11 out of the 14 patients who were asked for feedback rated the practice the highest score of listening to the things that mattered most to them about their health condition.

The service supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported patients 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 smoking cessation and weight management.

The lead GP at the practice had engaged in the wider network by delivering a session on “Eat Well for Health” at a local PCN event to promote and support patients living healthier lives.

The service did not always routinely monitor patients’ care and treatment to continuously improve it. For example, the practice had not completed any two-cycle audits in the past 12 months. The practice advised that over the past year, they had recruited and embedded six new doctors and one new nurse. The practice reported that due to ensuring the safe onboarding of a number of new clinical staff, they had primarily focused on this, and therefore had not had the capacity to complete such audits.

The practice did not meet national targets for all childhood immunisations. Performance for childhood immunisations had not met the national target of 90% for all 5 indicators.

The practice had not met national targets for cervical screening and had achieved an uptake of 59.2% for those aged 25-49 years old and 73.4% for those aged 50-64 years old (national target of 80%).

Practice staff were able to detail how they encouraged the uptake of both screening and immunisations by providing education to patients, offering opportunistic screening or vaccination if attending for another appointment (if time permits), and by offering a range of appointment availability across the PCN.

The service told patients 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.