Wyke Regis and Lanehouse Medical 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

Effective - This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on the best available evidence. 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 inspection, we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good. We identified improvements had been made to the uptake of cervical screening for eligible patients in line with national targets. The practice had also carried out audits to improve the quality of care provided for patients, such as urgent cancer referral audits and patient access capacity and demand analysis, leading to changes to the triage system in September 2024.

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.

Information was shared with staff and other agencies to enable them to deliver effective care and treatment. Delays in referrals were monitored and audits were carried out to ensure urgent cancer referrals were actioned.

The latest verifiable data from NHS England showed cervical cancer screening uptake for eligible patients was on average 85.6%, above national minimum targets, which was an improvement since out last inspection. The practice had proactively worked to increase uptake and education in this area. For example, Saturday appointments were available with a GP and a nurse practitioner. Dedicated health clinics had also been implemented where eligible patients could book appointments into, such as for coil fitting, cervical screening, and long-term condition reviews.

Leaders demonstrated improvements to the systems and processes to ensure patients who required recall monitoring were supported and managed. This included inviting patients for annual health reviews and long-term conditions reviews in line with national guidelines. The practice 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.

During our clinical searches, we found improvements had been made since the last inspection. For example, patients with long-term conditions were shown to have been assessed and treated in line with national guidelines, such as patients with asthma, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and hypothyroidism. A sample of records reviewed showed patients were recalled in line with blood monitoring requirements and medicines were reviewed to ensure care was provided in line with evidence-based guidelines. There was evidence of comprehensive assessments and personalised care plans. Staff used clinical templates effectively and adapted care for patients with complex needs. The practice demonstrated an effective system for updating clinical guidelines and protocols.

The service worked well across teams to support people, particularly when people moved between different services.

The practice worked with stakeholder organisations such as secondary healthcare providers to establish and maintain safe systems of care for patients. For example, staff used a clinical decision support tool to log and monitor urgent referrals and this included input from external professionals involved in the patient's care.

The practice worked alongside external stakeholder services such as the community mental health team to support vulnerable patients through treatment planning as part of a multi-disciplinary team.

The practice had a system in place for processing new patient information and summarising patient medical records. The practice had kept up to date with patient summarising to ensure accurate information was available for clinicians. There were processes to monitor and manage care when patients were moved between services such as after referral to secondary care, or admission to hospital. A review of the practice’s clinical system indicated patient test results were being managed in a timely manner to inform future care and treatment planning.

During our review of the practice’s clinical records systems, we found examples of effective plans for the transition of patients across multiple services. Referrals and discharge summaries were managed appropriately and considered people’s individual needs, circumstances, ongoing care arrangements and expected outcomes.

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 practice offered a range of health promotion services and supported patients to make healthy lifestyle choices. For example, we observed the practice had blood pressure monitors in the waiting areas to improve the accessibility and empower patients to manage their own assessments. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health such as smoking cessation, weight management, and screening services. There were also systems in place to follow up on missed appointments for health checks and vaccinations.

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.

Outcomes for patients were generally in line with local and national averages, such as meeting national minimum targets for childhood immunisations. The practice regularly monitored Quality Outcome Framework (QOF) indicators and demonstrated they had carried out audits to improve clinical quality which showed improvements from the last inspection. For example, the practice had implemented dedicated weekly skin lesion and leg ulcer clinics which provided positive accessibility outcomes, reducing the likelihood of hospital admittance. The practice had also analysed the local population needs by reviewing data in relation to patient access, capacity and demand. These had led to changes to the triage system in September 2024. The quality improvement audit detailed how the service was able to review patient requests more effectively through the new triage system, including determining clinical urgency.

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

Staff understood the legal requirements around consent. Mental capacity was assessed where appropriate, and consent was recorded accurately in the patient record. There was evidence of shared decision-making and staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act. We also found that Do Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Treatment Escalation Plans (TEP) records had been completed in line with national guidance.