Ball Tree 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 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 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 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. The National GP Patient Survey (2025) showed that 94%felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment (compared to 90% nationally).

Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Reception staff used digital flags in 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. Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. The service 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 service had developed a programme to support people living with frailty, for example, carrying out structured medication reviews with this group.

The service 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.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

Our clinical searches showed that the service was managing care appropriately for those aspects of management we reviewed in relation to asthma, diabetes, hypothyroidism and chronic kidney disease. However, people with asthma prescribed high-dose steroids were not always being issued a steroid card if appropriate. (Steroid cards provide important information for health professionals in an emergency).

The service provided a wide range of primary care services including fitting long-acting reversible contraception and minor surgery. Several of the clinicians had developed their training and knowledge in specific clinical areas, for example, the menopause and pain management.

The service worked well across teams and services 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 services.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. The service worked with other providers to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services. The service maintained registers of people with more complex needs. They were working with other teams and agencies to support people assessed as experiencing frailty and at risk of deterioration. We saw evidence of effective communication with specialist services and the local mental health teams.

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 peoples’’ health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, people 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. For example, the nursing team were participating in an NHS catch-up campaign to immunise adults (up to age 25) against HPV-related cancers if they had missed immunisation at school. (Certain types of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection can cause cervical cancer if left untreated.)

The service encouraged healthy lifestyles and activities. For example, it was a registered ‘ParkRun Practice’ and signposted people to the local ParkRun events with staff also taking part.

The service 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 service carried out audits and quality improvement work and could demonstrate improved outcomes. For example, over the previous 12 months, they had participated in work led by the local NHS commissioning team to reduce the number of people repeatedly prescribed sedative medicines with a risk of dependence or tolerance. The project resulted in 20 people either stopping or reducing their use of these medicines. The team had also used the project to reflect on what worked well and the challenges (for example, in initiating potentially difficult conversations with people) so that progress could be maintained following the project.

The service was exceeding national targets for childhood immunisations with 95% coverage for the most recently published indicators (2024/25). This included the percentage of 5-year-olds who had received both booster immunisations for MMR.

The service had achieved 74% uptake for cervical screening for women aged 25-49 and 70% for women aged 50-64. This was below the national target of 80%. The nursing team were following-up people who did not respond to the invitation to encourage improved uptake.

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.

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. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.