Hollywood Medical 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 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 meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

Leaders and staff made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Reception 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 or for a translator to be present. Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber and we saw evidence this was done appropriately.

Leaders and staff planned and delivered people’s 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. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people 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. For example, staff had recently contacted all patients with a caring responsibility to offer a referral to a local charitable organisation for additional support if they needed it.

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 focused 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 offered an annual health check to support the wellbeing of people with caring responsibilities to ensure they could fully support the person they were caring for. 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 and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. The practice met national targets for screening and immunisations. Staff continually worked towards meeting the national targets for screening and immunisations. For example, they worked with the local health visiting service to support hard to reach groups such as travellers to access immunisations for their babies and children. From the clinical searches we reviewed, we found people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance. There were a few gaps where patients had missed blood tests or the follow up for these. For example, 3 patients had not responded to requests from the GP practice to attend for a follow up appointment due to a potential missed diagnosis of diabetes. Leaders had looked at the queries raised during the clinical searches and the outcome were discussed during the onsite visit. All actions had been completed and where appropriate leaders had shared learning with staff.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Patient records we reviewed showed consent had been discussed and recorded. Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.