Selborne Road 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 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.

Staff at Selborne Road Medical Centre supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice, and control. The practice supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff focused on identifying risks to people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and those with caring responsibilities.

Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity, the national cervical screening and bowel cancer screening programmes, childhood immunisations, and covid and flu vaccination programmes.

Selborne Road Medical Centre routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive, consistent, and fully met the expectations of people themselves.

Staff we spoke to on the day of our visit stated that they believed the practice provided good care to patients and service users and that adequate systems were in place to monitor patients with long-term conditions and patients prescribed high risk medication.

The provider exceeded the World Health Organisations target of 95% for the uptake of 4 childhood immunisations and, although they were below the 90% minimum target for the other (children aged 5 who have received immunisation for measles, mumps and rubella - two doses), it was noted that 11 of the 14 children who were eligible for this vaccination had received it.

The provider also performed significantly better than the England average in relation to several cancer screening programmes, including screening for breast and bowel cancers. For example, breast screening coverage of 53 to 70 year olds was 83.6% (England average 70.4%) and bowel cancer screening coverage of 60 to 74 year olds was 79.8% (England average 71.8%).

Screening for cervical cancer was above the 80% national target for eligible patients in the 50 to 64 year old age group, with 86% of those eligible having had an adequate screening test within the last 5.5 years. Screening for cervical cancer in the 25 to 49 year old age group was slightly below the 80% target at 78.9%, however.

The provider offered NHS health checks for 40 to 74-year-olds and annual health checks for patients with learning disabilities and patients with severe mental health conditions. Local monitoring arrangements for ensuring these checks were completed were in place. There was also a system in place for monitoring patients who did not attend for screening and follow ups (for example for cytology and immunisations).

Prescribing rates for psychotropic medicines (medicines used to treat mental health conditions), broad‑spectrum antibiotics and gabapentinoids (medicines commonly used to treat neuropathic pain and certain neurological disorders) were all below the national average.

The provider maintained a programme of regular clinical audits focused on improving patient outcomes and, for example, recent audits had been completed on patients with chronic kidney disease and patients prescribed hormone replacement therapy.

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.