The Neaman Practice

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 need for care and support. Staff worked with external services to support health and wellbeing through social prescribing and community referrals. The practice also supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including NHS Health Checks, smoking cessation and tackling obesity.

There was a blood pressure monitoring machine with guidance for patients on how to use adjacent to the reception area, to support patients to measure their blood pressure independently. The practice delivered a range of preventative health initiatives, including vaccination and screening programmes.

The service focused on identifying and addressing risks to people’s health and providing appropriate support. This included for people with long term conditions, those in the last 12 months of life, people living with a serious mental illness (SMI) and carers. Unverified full-year data showed that 78% of patients with an SMI had received all six recommended physical health checks.

The service monitored people's care and treatment, and staff used this information to drive continuous improvement. Staff were focused on delivering positive outcomes for patients.

Most clinical performance indicators were comparable with or above local and national averages. However, some childhood immunisation uptake and cancer screening indicators had not met targets. Improvement actions had been taken and staff told us that published performance data may be affected by factors including relatively high population mobility and patients accessing vaccinations, screening and other healthcare services privately or overseas, which are not always captured within national reporting systems. We noted unverified data indicating the practice had a slightly above average rate of patient turnover, and that its patient population was among the least deprived nationally and these issues may impact the reported performance data.

Actions taken to improve uptake of cancer screening and childhood immunisations included providing information to support people’s informed decision-making, maintaining call and recall systems and using escalation processes for non-responders, where appropriate. Ongoing improvement plans included evaluation triggers to track improvements over time.

Effective systems were in place to support the timely review of test results and oversight of referrals such as urgent suspected cancer referrals made through the two-week wait pathway. Clinical performance was routinely reviewed to evaluate and improve the quality of care. The practice completed a range of clinical audits and regularly reviewed significant events and other clinical issues to support learning and improvement.

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.