Archived: Seaforth Farm Surgery

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 assessed 1 quality statement from this key question. We have combined the scores for this area with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. We found that the practice did not always document when they involved people in decisions about their care and treatment.

We found breaches of regulation for the Effective key question and have told the provider to take action.

This service scored 71 (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 receive any feedback specific to this quality statement from people who used the service, however our clinical searches showed that risks to people’s health and well-being was not always identified and documented.

Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Reception staff applied digital flags on patient records to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments. Staff and leaders told us they had processes to ensure that risks to people’s health and well-being were identified early and to prevent deterioration. However, our clinical searches showed some of these processes were not working as intended.

Clinical staff used templates to support the review of people’s wider health and well-being. Our clinical searches found that in most cases, patients with long term conditions received appropriate healthcare. However, we found that information was not always recorded to demonstrate reviews had involved patients and all risks had been discussed. For example, our clinical searches identified 42 patients as having a potential missed diagnosis of chronic kidney disease (CKD). When 4 out of 5 patient records were reviewed in more detail, this indicated a diagnosis of CKD. These had not been coded, appropriately investigated and patients had not been informed of the diagnosis.

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.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.