The Borchardt Medical 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 monitored people’s care and treatment and supported them to live healthier lives. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive, consistent and met the expectations of people themselves.

The practice had a well-established quality improvement programme that was used to monitor performance, identify risks and improve outcomes for patients. Quality improvement activity was undertaken across a range of clinical and operational areas, including prescribing safety, patient safety, long-term condition monitoring, referral management and patient access. The programme consisted of 24 quality improvement projects, of which 22 had been completed. For example, an annual referral audit which ensured clinicians received a breakdown of their own referral patterns, allowing them to see any outliers and learning points to reflect upon.

The practice used audit findings and data analysis to identify patients at risk of harm and implement targeted interventions. This included reviews of high-risk medicines such as methotrexate, ACE inhibitors and ARBs, and ADHD medications, ensuring patients received appropriate monitoring in line with national guidance. Where gaps in monitoring were identified, patients were contacted, appropriate investigations were arranged and outcomes were reviewed through planned re-audit cycles.

The practice also implemented proactive systems to improve outcomes for vulnerable patient groups. For example, audits identified patients who had not collected antipsychotic or antiepileptic medications, allowing clinicians to review cases, contact patients where appropriate and reduce the risk of relapse, breakthrough seizures and avoidable harm.

Learning from quality improvement activity was used to inform changes in clinical practice and service delivery. Referral activity was reviewed through an annual audit that provided both practice-level and individual clinician feedback to support reflection and improve referral quality. The practice also undertook thematic reviews of complaints to identify recurring themes and drive service improvements. This demonstrated a commitment to using data, audit and patient feedback to continuously improve care, safety and patient outcomes.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.