Dr Heath Prescot 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 involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them with 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 service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them.Feedback from people using the service was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. National GP Patient Survey results show that 98% of respondents who responded felt their needs were met during their last appointment which was higher than the local average of 91% and national average of 90%. Additionally, 94% of patients felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment which was higher than the local average of 93% and the national average of 92%.

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. A hearing loop was available. 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. The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber. Systems were in place to identify individuals with caring responsibilities. Patients with a learning disability were invited to attend an annual health assessment and long-term condition reviews were undertaken for those patients who were housebound.

The service 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.Our remote clinical searches identified 7 out of 342 patients with hypothyroidism (a condition where the thyroid does not produce enough hormones) who had potentially not received the appropriate monitoring in the last 18 months. We reviewed 5 of these records and found all had been appropriately recalled.

Our remote clinical searches identified 35 patients with asthma who had been prescribed 2 or more courses of rescue steroids in the last 12 months. Of the 5 patients reviewed, we found all were appropriately managed.

Our remote clinical searches identified the practice had 80 patients with diabetes who’s latest HbA1c (blood glucose) level was consistently high. We reviewed 5 patients and found all patients had been followed up appropriately.

Overall, we found that monitoring of patients with long-term conditions were in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations.

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. There were systems in place to enable information to be shared between the provider and services to ensure continuity of care. Regular meetings were held with multi-disciplinary teams to ensure care was coordinated effectively.The PCN supported the practice by providing links to pharmacists and social prescribers. People were able to receive coordinated care between the practice and the PCN.

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.Health promotion material was observed in the practice, and further information could be found on their website that supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health by supporting people.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.The practice met national targets for screening and immunisations. 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.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.The service supported people to make an informed decision about their care and treatment because they had been provided with information, they needed to support them to do so.Staff we spoke with demonstrated the importance of ensuring that people understood what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before they delivered care or treatment. Clinical staff had undergone training in the Mental Capacity Act. Staff understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making.Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.