Quinton 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.

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.

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 that 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 if they were on a register such as learning disability or dementia or if they had a requirement for longer appointments.

Staff checked people’s 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. 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 within their Primary Care Network.

The National GP Survey results found 91% of people who responded to the survey were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment, the same as the national average.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance. Any changes in clinical practice guidelines were discussed as part of clinical meetings held.

The remote clinical searches we undertook included reviewing the monitoring of patients with long-term conditions to assess if National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations were followed. We found these patients were well managed with processes in place to follow up patients who failed to attend for their blood monitoring. Overall, we found patients whose clinical records we sampled were receiving appropriate treatment, monitoring and review.

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 service worked with other services to ensure continuity of care and regular multi-disciplinary team meetings were held. Patients had access to services provided by the Primary Care Network (PCN). This included a social prescriber, mental health practitioner, a care co-ordinator, paramedic, dietician, physiotherapist and pharmacists in addition to extended access appointments.

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 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.

A range of information to promote better health was displayed on the practice website and in the waiting area. Patients were advised to ask at reception if they would like to be referred onto a healthy lifestyle scheme. The scheme was designed to help individuals improve their physical fitness and mental wellbeing through subsidised leisure centre memberships. The practice offered new patient health checks, carers checks and basic health checks such as blood pressure and bloods if patients had not had these checks for 5 years. The practice held a register of patients with potential diabetes and referred them to the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme for advice and support. Our clinical searches found no patients at risk of potential diabetes. Patients also had access to a dietician via the Primary Care Network.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service had met national targets for screening and immunisations. The service met the national minimum target for childhood immunisations with 3 of the 5 indicators exceeding the World Health Organisation (WHO) target of 95%. Staff told us a particular cohort of parents did not engage well regarding immunisations. They were looking to reach out to them about the benefits of immunisations to help improve further uptake. The uptake of cervical screening for both age groups was above the national target of 80%. The uptake for bowel cancer screening was in line with and for breast screening was above the national average.

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

The practice had 42 patients registered with a learning disability. The practice told us all the eligible patients had received an annual health in the previous year. The care co-ordinator carried out home visits for patients who were reluctant to attend the practice for review.

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 recorded. The practice clinical system identified 26 live patients as having a ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decision’ (DNACPR). The practice utilised Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms. These forms are generally used for people with complex health needs and completed with the individual, family if desired and healthcare professionals about their care in the event of an emergency. We sampled 5 patient records and found DNACPR decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation. Leaders told us they shared ReSPECT forms with the local ambulance service, so their personnel were aware of patients preferred care and treatment in the event of a medical emergency.

Where appropriate, patients were offered a chaperone for care and treatment with staff who had received training. Chaperone posters were displayed in the practice to inform patients of this service.

Leaders told us as part of local Quality Improvement Framework (QIF) scheme last year they were one of the highest achievers for coding patients preferred place of death.