Adelaide 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, we focused on 2 quality statements relating to the key question Effective: Supporting people to live healthier lives and Monitoring and improving outcomes. 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 practice supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. It supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health. The practice participated in local support programmes being conducted within the Primary Care Network (PCN), NHS preventative programmes and community health initiatives. They were planned to ensure an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to care delivery, ensuring patients received timely access to appropriate services and holistic support. The practice website provided patients with advice on self-help over a range of health issues and had a facility for self-referral to various local services. These included smoking cessation, drug and alcohol dependency, nutrition and weight management, physiotherapy and psychological services.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and those with caring responsibilities. The practice had identified 354 people with caring responsibilities (approximately 3% of registered patients) and provided them with appropriate support. Information for carers was available in the patient waiting area and on the practice website, with signposting to support organisations. Services such as health and wellbeing checks were offered to carers. A social prescriber was shared with the other practices in the primary care network (PCN). Patient feedback we received was positive regarding the support the practice provided to carers and their families.

We saw verified published data that showed the practice performed above expectation in relation to carrying out health checks for people with severe mental illness and people with a learning disability.

The practice told us 76 people with severe mental health needs had received health checks in 2025/26, and 23 so far this year. It had found flexible access worked best for this patient cohort, rather than fixed-day clinics. The checks were carried out by the practice healthcare assistant, with the results being reviewed by the internal multi-disciplinary team (MDT). Any required follow-ups, including test referrals, mental health team referrals, or GP appointments, were arranged during that MDT review.

The practice told us it had conducted health checks with 35 people with a learning disability in 2025/26, with 4 this year up to the end of August 2026. These involved an initial 30-minute appointment with one of the practice nurses for investigations and screening and, where appropriate, a 30-muinute clinical review with one of the GPs. This was most often done on the same day to avoid patients needing to attend more than once.

The practice routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve. It ensured outcomes were positive, consistent and met the expectations of people themselves.

Published verified data for the year 2024/25 showed the number of new cancer cases treated resulting from an urgent suspected cancer referral was in line with the national average.

We reviewed the most recent verified data for childhood immunisations published by the UK Health Security Agency (1/4/2024 to 31/3/2025). The practice had not met the minimum 90% target for the 5 childhood immunisation indicators, achieving between 76% and 89% uptake, but the results showed a gradual improvement over the previous 2 years.

Low uptake of immunisations is a known trend, particularly in London. The practice had reviewed the issue and had taken a range of measures to increase uptake. Records coding for children newly registered with the practice had been improved. The call / recall process involved 4 invitations; the first 2 by text message or email, followed by a letter and lastly telephone contact. One of the practice nurses, who had specialist training on vaccine hesitancy, was specifically tasked to offer the parent or carer a clinical discussion about the benefits of vaccination and the recommended schedule. This had proved effective. The practice website included information to patients and promoting childhood immunisations. Staff continued to engage with parents opportunistically during each routine contact to discuss and propose immunisation appointments for the children. We saw current unverified data which, although not directly comparable with the published results from March 2025, showed an improving trend in performance.

We reviewed the practice’s performance in relation to the cervical screening programme. The latest available published data showed uptake (as of June 2024) was below the programme standard. This requires 80% of eligible women to have adequate screening test within the previous three and a half years. Low screening rates are another recognised trend, particularly in London. The data showed the practice’s uptake rate for 25 to 49-year-olds was 53%, while for 50 to 64-year-olds it was 66%.

The practice had reviewed the issue and carried out an audit to assist in bringing about an increase in uptake. It recognised that the practice operated in an area with a diverse population and various potential barriers had been identified. These included language or communication issues, cultural or religious concerns, a transient population, embarrassment or anxiety about having a smear test, previous uncomfortable or negative experiences, a lack of understanding of the importance of cervical screening. It was also possible that some patients had their screening done privately, or in their countries of origin, without informing the practice for their records to be updated.

The practice had started working to improve cervical screening uptake. Overdue patients were being contacted by telephone and text messages and offered the opportunity to book a screening appointment. This had resulted in a small improvement in uptake compared with previous years, but further action was being planned. The practice intended to hold several Well Woman Days in the coming months. Patients overdue cervical screening will be invited to attend. Audits will be carried out after the events to assess their impact. In addition, staff would continue to engage with patients opportunistically where screening was overdue, with flags on the records system as prompts.

Both improving childhood immunisations and cervical screening uptake were identified as service development areas in the practice’s 2026 business plan.

The practice had adopted a care model for managing a wider range of long-term conditions within the West and North London Integrated Care System. This provided patients with a check and test appointment, a health review, test results and care plan, a discussion appointment and a follow up.

The practice was an accredited training provider, and it made good use of clinical auditing as part of the training and to review performance and improve patient outcomes. We saw evidence of regular and ongoing quality improvement actions, including multi-cycle clinical auditing and outreach activities. The audits included several to check and monitor that appropriate records coding was being used in respect of patients with long term conditions such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and those identified as being pre-diabetic. Others included a range of reviews in relation to the care of vulnerable patients, or those for whom reasonable adjustments might be appropriate to ensure they had access to services. The audits were well-presented and, where appropriate, identified actions for potential improvement moving forward.

In addition, the practice had carried out various other records reviews and outreach engagement providing data in relation to monitoring specific healthcare issues and we saw plans they will be repeated. These were in relation to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) now known as polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS) , gestational diabetes, hormone replacement therapy, prostate health monitoring and access to sexual health screening. They allowed the practice to be proactive in identifying possible related healthcare issues at an early stage. For example, women with PCOS have an increased risk of developing metabolic and cardiovascular health problems.

The results of the various quality improvement activities were reviewed and discussed at clinical meetings, with any learning and improvement actions being recorded and disseminated among staff.

We saw the clinical meetings were well recorded and covered general topics and issues relating to specific cases, which provided opportunities for discussion, learning and reflection.

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.