Stock Surgery

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 needs with them.

Feedback from people using the service was positive. For example, The National GP Patient Survey carried out from January to March 2024 had 116 responses. This showed high levels of patient satisfaction regarding having trust in clinicians and being involved in decisions about their care. 93% of respondents had confidence and trust in the healthcare professionals at the practice. This was slightly higher than the national average.

Remote searches conducted by a CQC GP Specialist Advisor found most people with long-term conditions were reviewed in a timely way. Where patients were identified who had not been reviewed, the practice took immediate action, audited the area and put an action plan in place where appropriate.

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. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

Leaders and staff told us the practice had systems and processes to keep clinicians up to date with current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff had access to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and monthly clinical meetings. The leaders stated they regular participated in meetings, workshops, and training sessions within the primary care network and integrated care services frameworks. In addition, staff had protected time to attend training. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

The practice worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared patient’s assessment of needs when they moved between different services.

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.

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 service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

The practice met national targets for screening and immunisations. The practice had achieved over 90% for all of the childhood immunisation targets and an average of 80% for uptake of cervical screening which met the national target of 80%.The indicators for the number of patients undertaking breast and bowel screening at the practice were above the national average. From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance. Where there were areas for improvement, such as those identified regarding MHRA alerts, the practice took immediate action to address these.

The service 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. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.