Springfield House

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.

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

The service met some of the national targets for the uptake of childhood immunisations. To improve uptake people who did not respond to several invites, by text and phone, were referred to the health visiting team.

The service performed the same as the England average in relation to several cancer screening programmes, including screening for breast and bowel cancer. The service did not meet the national target for cervical cancer screening.

To improve uptake of cervical cancer screening the practice had appointed a cancer care co-ordinator who contacted people by telephone and text and when patients contacted the practice, opportunity was taken to offer an appointment convenient to the patient. There was a patient information board in the waiting area to provide information to the patients. The practice was also planning to hold an evening or weekend event to explain the benefits of screening and to offer an appointment with a nurse.

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.