Faversham Medical Group

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 patients 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, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

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.

Staff checked patients’ health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of patients’ wider health and wellbeing.

Feedback from patients using the service was positive. Patients felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident staff understood their individual and cultural needs.

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

The practice planned and delivered patients’ 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. Our remote clinical searches showed that patients with long‑term conditions were being effectively monitored. For example, there was appropriate monitoring for patients with asthma who had received two or more rescue steroid courses in the last 12 months, patients with diabetes whose latest HbA1c (a blood test that shows long‑term blood sugar control) was above recommended levels, patients with hypothyroidism, and patients with chronic kidney disease stages 4 or 5.

The practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including when clinical tasks were delegated to other services, including those who may be vulnerable because of their circumstances.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver patients’ 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 practice supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The practice supported patients 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.

The practice monitored patients’ care and treatment to improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of patients themselves.

UK Health Security Agency data showed between April 2024 and March 2025, the practice met the World Health Organisation target for 1 out of 5 childhood immunisation indicators, achieving 98%. The practice met the minimum threshold target for the remaining 4 indicators. Although these were below the WHO target, they were above the national minimum standard of 90%.

NHS England data showed the practice was performing below the 80% national target for cervical cancer screening uptake as of June 2024. It showed it had achieved 69% coverage for women aged 25-49 and 73% for women aged 50-64. The practice was aware of these results and carried out regular recall audits, routinely inviting patients and holding conversations to explore concerns and offer reassurance.

The practice also completed a quality improvement initiative in 2024 and 2025 to increase cervical screening uptake. They recognised that some women faced barriers to attending routine appointments, so they introduced a walk‑in clinic to improve accessibility, which resulted in 81 tests being completed. They later offered Saturday appointments and made cervical screening appointments available for patients to book online. The practice told us these measures had improved access, increased patient choice and supported higher participation in cervical screening.

Unverified data from the practice, dated 10 March 2026, showed an improvement in uptake had been achieved as a result of the practice’s actions. For example, the practice had now achieved 80% uptake for both indicators. (Unverified data refers to data that has been provided by the practice and has not been published, therefore has not been verified by the data owner, for example, UK Health Security Agency, NHS Digital, NHS England and Improvement).

The practice had a programme of targeted quality improvement and used information about patient care and treatment to drive changes. In June 2024, an audit was carried out on pre‑conception counselling for diabetic women of childbearing age. Forty‑two women were identified, of whom 78% had documented pre‑conception counselling, 59% had been prescribed pre‑conception folic acid and only 31% had been offered contraception. The audit showed that while most women received counselling, documentation of folic acid prescribing and family‑planning discussions was inconsistent. The practice identified actions to improve this, including staff training on relevant guidance, introducing a standardised documentation template, sending targeted patient information, and making pre‑conception counselling a routine part of annual diabetic reviews. The second audit cycle conducted in May 2025 demonstrated improvement, with counselling now being documented for 95% of women, folic acid prescribing rising to 87%, and family‑planning discussions increasing to 70%. The practice planned to continue this improvement work by carrying out a further audit in 2026 and taking targeted actions, for example ongoing staff education and seeking patient feedback.

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

Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Our review of a sample of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions found all were appropriate and made in accordance with relevant legislation and best practice guidance.