Falkland House 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 looked for evidence 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.

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. For example, they carried out routine NHS health checks on eligible patients. They had taken part in a local initiative to support health, wellbeing and social isolation. The provider had introduced a healthy walking programme for patients, although this was no longer funded some patients still took part.

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. There was a programme of regular clinical audit that focused on improving patient outcomes. For example, they had completed an audit of patients on anti‑rheumatic medicines, took action to address monitoring needs, and had implemented a system for ongoing and timely identification of patients requiring blood tests.

The service exceeded national targets for the uptake of childhood immunisations achieving 100% for those aged 1 and 2 years and 96% for those aged 5 years (World Health Organisation target 95%). The service performed better than the England average in relation to several cancer screening programmes, including screening for cervical cancer achieving 82.6% for those aged 25-49 and 90.4% for those aged 50-64 years (national target 80%). The service had also exceeded national standards for breast and bowel screening uptake with 82.5% uptake for breast screening (national average 70.4%) and 84.4% for bowel screening (national average 71.8%). The practice manager told us they would promote these screening programmes on their TV screen in reception and staff would actively contact and send out reminders to those who did not attend.

The service also had positive outcomes with prescribing rates being lower than national averages for psychotropic medicines, gabapentinoids, and antibiotics, although broad‑spectrum antibiotic prescribing was slightly above average.

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.