Walford Mill 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, 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.

The service offered a range of opportunities and supported people to make healthy lifestyle choices. For example, the service had blood pressure monitors in the waiting area to encourage people to manage their own assessments. We also noted information boards with posters and leaflets tailored to the needs of the people who used the service. Digital resources including a ‘self-help centre’, NHS ‘Live Well’, health check tools and health information library were available through the service’s website.

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 smoking cessation, weight management, and screening services.

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.

Outcomes for people were in line with local and national averages, including meeting national minimum targets for childhood immunisations. The service performed better than the national average in relation to several cancer screening programmes, including screening for breast, bowel and cervical cancer. For example, we noted breast screening coverage for 53 to 70 year olds was 76.7% against the national average of 70.4%. Bowel cancer screening coverage for 60 to 70 year olds was 82.1%, against the national average of 71.8%.

Published cervical cancer screening data from 2024 showed uptake in eligible people aged 50 to 63 years was 80%, which met the expected level of 80%, and 79.3.% for people aged 25 to 49 years, slightly below the national target of 80%. Leaders and staff had worked together to improve uptake, with additional appointment slots provided outside of core hours and calling eligible people to offer screening. Leaders advised this had been positively received by people using the service and unverified data supplied by the service showed an increase in uptake to 87.3% in eligible people aged 50 to 64 years and 81% in those aged 25 to 49 years.

The service carried out audits to improve clinical quality and maintained an audit review schedule. For example, the service reviewed the number of people prescribed attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications to ensure they received adequate monitoring. The initial audit, completed in June 2026 found, whilst 93.5% of people had blood pressure checks included within their recall process, monitoring was not consistently completed across all 7 required elements. For example, only 19.4% of people had a recorded height measurement, as required by national guidance. In response, the service streamlined its recall process, updated its review questionnaire to include all required monitoring elements, and provided staff training. A subsequent re-audit, in July 2026, showed that 86% of people receiving ADHD medication had all 7 monitoring elements recorded. The audit review schedule showed this work would be reviewed again in 3 months' time to ensure improvements were sustained.

The service shared audit findings and learning with staff, demonstrating a commitment to continuous improvement and better care for people.

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.