Wallington Family 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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

The service was in breach of legal regulation 17 (Good governance) and is no longer in breach.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

At the previous inspection we found most patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs. However, processes to ensure patients’ needs were assessed, and care and treatment was delivered in line with current legislation, and evidence-based guidance were not always effective. The practice was not able to consistently demonstrate that staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.

At this inspection we found overall most patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs, and care and treatment was delivered in line with current legislation, standards and was evidence based. We found staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.

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. 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. 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 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 provider 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 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.

At this inspection we looked at the records of 5 patients with a long-term condition that required monitoring, we found 1 patient was overdue an annual medical review. Shortly after the inspection the practice contacted the patient and booked a review.

We reviewed the records of 5 patients on a medication used to treat and prevent bone related conditions; we found that 2 patients had not been fully advised or had the necessary scan for monitoring treatment

We reviewed 5 patient records with the potential missed diagnosis of chronic kidney disease; we found there were 3 missed diagnosis.

After the inspection the practice informed us, they had discussed the findings from the CQC records review in a partner meeting and raised this as a learning event. The practice said they would review the current processes they have in place and would review all patients highlighted in the searches.

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. For example, nurses explained they held virtual wards, because they could access patients records from the hospital and the hospital could access their patient records. This enabled them to review urgent care plans.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. The practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services. Leaders told us they had daily discussions with staff and held regular meetings. They were in a transition phase, moving some documents over. Many documents, including policies and meeting minutes, were stored on a new platform. All staff could access this platform.

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 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 stopping smoking and tackling obesity. The practice was working with their primary community network (PCN) to encourage healthier eating throughout the neighbourhood. For example, a health coach attended the practice once a week.

Data from the 2025 National GP patient survey showed that 70% of people completing the survey felt they received enough support from local services or organisations in the last twelve months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses. This was in line with the local average 70% and the national average 69%. Sixty-five percentsaid the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at considering their mental wellbeing during their last general practice appointment. This was lower than the local 76% and national 74% averages.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, however they did not always meet clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

At the previous inspection, the practice was not meeting all national targets for screening and immunisations. At the time of this assessment, the practice was still below target for cervical cancer and children’s immunisation. Despite being below some targets, we saw evidence that the practice was proactive with encouraging patients for screening programmes. For example, they recruited a designated recall manager, whose role was to contact patients via phone, text, letter and book them in for appointments. The practice was also getting support from the information commissioning board (ICB) to improve 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

The National GP Patient Survey results showed that 91% of respondents felt they had all the information they needed and 81% felt involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. These results were in line with local 92% and national 91% averages.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

All staff had completed mental capacity, consent, safeguarding and deprivation of liberty training.

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.

We reviewed 3 (DNACPR) records and found decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.