Crown Street 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 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 people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

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. 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. Feedback from people using the service was positive, 94% of respondents to the 2025 National GP Patient Survey said that their needs were met (national average of 90% and local average 89%).

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. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

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.

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. For example, a sample of 5 patient records were looked at for medication reviews were appropriately carried out. Similarly, no issues were identified in the patient records we reviewed, including asthma patients with 2 or more rescue steroids, patients with diabetes diagnosis and patients with Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD).

The practice 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. Staff told us regular multi-disciplinary team meetings were held with external agencies where vulnerable people, or those with complex care needs were discussed and actions recorded. They had clinics such as women’s health, baby and diabetes clinics available for their patients and patients from the wider Primary Care Networks (PCN).

The practice supported people to manage their health and well-being to maximise their independence, choice, and control. Patients had access to a social prescriber, which helped them improve their health, well-being, and social welfare by connecting them to community services. Healthy living information was available in the waiting room and on the practice website.

The practice supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Staff gave examples of where people had been positively supported to live healthier lives, which included healthy eating, weight management, and wellbeing talks. We found no concerns regarding processes to help support people to live healthier lives.

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 NHS England data showed the practice was performing below the 80% national target for cervical cancer screening uptake as of June 2024. It showed it had achieved 61% coverage for women aged 25-49 and 75% for women aged 50-64.In addition, UK Health Security Agency data showed between April 2024 and March 2025, the childhood immunisations data for the practice were all below the World Health Organisation target of 95% (practice uptake ranged between 59% - 81%).The practice was aware of this and informed us they had a monthly recall audit, they offered a range of appointments including out-of-hours, patients received automated text messages, and staff offered opportunistic immunisations and smears. There was also a decliner’s register for those that did not want treatment. Leaders provided evidence that the practice had achieved cervical screening rates that were higher than local practices, although this was still lower than national targets.

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 practice told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff who carried out chaperone duties were trained for the role and posters were displayed in the practice informing people this was available to them.

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. Leaders informed us they supported patients and where necessary their relatives to have these difficult conversations ahead of time.