Malvern Health 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 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 practice made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. The practice had a robust system in place for the monitoring of patients with long term conditions. Feedback from people using the service was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. Staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Digital flags were used within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments. Patients told us they appreciated this as they did not feel rushed during their appointment. Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. People living with a long-term condition and those with a learning disability were invited for regular review of their health, care and treatment.

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. The practice held monthly lunch and learn sessions where topics were chosen dependent upon recent changes and updates in guidelines and clinical cases. The remote clinical searches we undertook of the practice’s clinical records system showed the monitoring of people with long-term conditions were followed in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations.

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. The practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care which included the safeguarding lead for the Primary Care Network (PCN). The practice held regular multi-disciplinary team meetings. They had two GPs who ran a weekly diabetic multi-disciplinary team meeting with their diabetic practice nurse and the diabetic coordinator for the PCN. They used this meeting to discuss the best treatment options for patients. They also held regular meetings with the diabetic specialist nurse from secondary care to discuss complex patients. They shared this information within the practice to help improve the knowledge and awareness of the team.

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. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health. Health promotion material was observed in the practice and further information was provided on their website. The practice had a blood pressure machine in reception to allow patients to do their own blood pressure readings, and they did not need to book an appointment to do so. Patients told us they found this very useful.

The practice monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. At the time of our assessment, the latest information from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) showed that the practice met the national target for the number of children immunised against various infectious childhood diseases. Staff routinely followed up when childhood immunisations were missed to ensure parents had the opportunity to discuss this. However, the latest information from NHS Digital showed the practice’s uptake of cervical cancer screening was below the 80% national target for both women aged 25-49 and 50-64. The practice was aware of these figures and had systems in place to improve the uptake of cervical cancer screening. For example, they had systems in place to monitor attendance and follow up non-attenders. The service engaged in regular audits and quality improvement. They followed up audits with recommendations based on the findings of the audit and an action plan to support the recommendations. We saw evidence of second cycle audits taking place to evidence that improvements had been made.

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. Chaperones were available upon request. This information was on display in the form of posters in the practice. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.