Rustlings Road 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.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and those with caring responsibilities. For example, they carried out routine NHS health checks on eligible patients, and some patients took part in a healthy walking programme.

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. The service had carried out regular clinical audit, including several 2 cycle audits that focused on improving patient outcomes. For example, they had completed an audit to identify patients with a prostate cancer diagnosis who were receiving a hormone injection treatment to ensure they were appropriately monitored in line with national guidance. This showed 100% of patients identified in September 2025 had received the recommended monitoring and on the re-audit in March 2026, 2 patients were identified as not receiving monitoring at the practice but records confirmed they were both under active treatment at the hospital.

The service met national targets for the uptake of childhood immunisations and performed better than the England average in relation to several cancer screening programmes, including screening for breast and bowel cancer. The service had met the national target of 80% for screening of cervical cancer for those aged 50 to 64 years and was achieving just below the national target at 76.6% for those aged 25 to 49 years. The provider was aware of its cervical cytology screening data and had recently taken proactive steps to support uptake. For example, a staff member had contacted patients directly to assist with appointment booking. The practice also used text messaging, including direct booking links, to make access more convenient.

The service had positive outcomes with prescribing rates being lower than national averages for psychotropic medicines, hypnotics, and antibiotic prescribing.

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.