Newbury Street 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 that 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. Patients with long term conditions had received routine monitoring tests and diagnoses were recorded accurately.

At our last inspection, we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this inspection, we saw improvements had been made and sustained and the rating for the provision of effective services is now good.

The breach of regulations (Regulation 12: Safe care and treatment) has now been closed.

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.

The practice had introduced and embedded processes which made sure patients care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

In line with an improved clinical oversight within the practice including the introduction of the Safety and Quality Assurance Team (SQuAT) we saw patients had their needs assessed and reviewed at the correct intervals.

Feedback from people using the service was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual needs. Digital flags within the care records system were used to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments. Patient feedback highlighted staff checked their health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. We saw the practice had effective systems to identify potential clinical diagnoses missed and people with previously undiagnosed conditions.

There was a register of 65 patients aged over 14 with a learning disability. Records showed that all 65 patients (100%) had been offered an annual health check and at the time of our inspection, 54 of the 65 patients (83%) had a completed health check. We saw several patients had health check appointments scheduled and further invites were sent for those patients who had not responded.

The practice planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Improvements had been made and this was now in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The introduction of the SQuAT included clinical oversight which reviewed prescribing, monitoring and delivery of long-term condition management. Staff described how they managed patients effectively, with assessments and reviews at the correct intervals.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. This included educational sessions during in-house protected learning time to cover long-term condition updates such as asthma, diabetes and chronic kidney failure.

Staff across the practice had key roles in monitoring and improving outcomes for patients. These roles included data input, scheduling clinical reviews and medicines management. The information staff collected was collated to support the practice to carry out clinical audits. For example, the practice had completed diabetes clinical audits which fed into the overall diabetes quality improvement project.

Our review of the clinical record system indicated that patients received care, treatment and support that was evidence-based and in line with good practice standards. The management of patients living with long term conditions was effective and our searches did not identify any gaps in the monitoring of patients.This included improvements to the areas of concern reported at the previous inspection. For example, improvement in the management of cardiac, renal and respiratory conditions.

Staff told us the introduction of a new 5 step approach to managing patient recalls was much more effective and resulted in enhanced patient monitoring and the positive search results found on this inspection.

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.