The Spitalfields 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 with 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.

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.

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, where there were in-house smoking cessation clinics, which patients could self-refer into and tackling obesity. The practice also made full use of their Social Prescriber who focussed on patient’s non-clinical aspects of patient well-being.
 

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

The practice worked hard to meet national targets for screening and immunisations. Unverified data provided to us by the practice showed that between April 2024 and March 2025, for cervical cytology, the practice achieved 40.3% for the 25- to 49-year-old age group and 71.9% for the 50- to 64-year-old age group. The practice engaged with their primary care network to increase uptake by supporting the recall system, promoting out of hours appointments and supporting patients through anxiety and cultural differences. Between April 2025 and March 2026, unverified data provided to us by the practice showed that the 25- to 49-year-old age group achieved 43% (an increase of 2.7%) and the 50- to 65-year-old age group achieved 79.9% (an increase of 8%).

The practice also closely monitored childhood immunisation uptake and demonstrated improvements across several vaccination programmes between 2024/2025 and 2025/2026. Unverified data provided by the practice showed improvements in uptake for the DTaP/IPV/Hib/HepB (Diphtheria, Tetanus, acellular Pertussis, Inactivated Poliovirus, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and Hepatitis B) vaccination, which increased from 84.2% to 85.1%, Hib/MenC (Haemophilus influenzae type b and Meningococcal group C) vaccinations, which increased from 78.9% to 81.9%, and primary MMR vaccinations, which increased from 78.9% to 83%. The practice maintained regular oversight of quarterly performance data and worked proactively with the primary care network to identify children who had not attended for vaccination, strengthen recall processes and encourage timely uptake. Although some booster vaccination uptake remained below target, leaders demonstrated awareness of this and continued to implement targeted actions to improve coverage and reduce inequalities in access to immunisations.
 

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.