Cornhill 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 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 meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Feedback from people using the service was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident staff understood their individual and cultural needs. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present. Staff checked people’s health,care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews.The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment in partnership with them,taking into account what was important to them. This was done in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Systems were in place to ensure staff remained up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Clinical records we reviewed demonstrated most care was provided in line with current guidance. However, one area showed inconsistency. This related to patients with asthma who had been prescribed two or more courses of rescue steroids for acute flare-ups. Of the 848 patients diagnosed with asthma, 22 had been prescribed two or more courses of steroids. These patients should receive follow-up from the practice within one week of each course. While follow-up had occurred in some cases, this was not done consistently for the five patients we reviewed in detail.

The practice acted promptly to address this issue by immediately reviewing the care of all affected patients. Learning from this review was used to strengthen processes, and actions were implemented to ensure consistent and appropriate follow-up in the future. Leaders introduced a standard operating procedure, which was shared with all prescribing staff. Alerts were also added to the electronic records system to ensure steroids prescribed for asthma aligned with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. The practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.We saw referrals were followed up and people were kept informed of the progress of these.

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.

Staff focused on identifying risks to patients’ health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, patients at risk of developing a long-term condition 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 and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Published national data for the uptake of childhood immunisations was slightly below the target recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) of 95%. Leaders were aware of this and had identified a small number of families who had chosen not to have their children immunised. Staff maintained regular contact with these families to ensure they had the information they needed to make informed decisions.

Published national data for the uptake of cervical screening was also below the national average. However, the practice had taken steps to improve these results. This included offering appointments at more convenient times for working individuals, which had helped to increase uptake.

From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded in patient records.