Hampton 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

EFFECTIVE: People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

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 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 practice 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 the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present. 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.

The practice proactively identified patients with caring responsibilities, who were added to the carers register. Carers were offered longer appointments and support for their physical and mental health, flu vaccination and access to social prescriber appointments as well as referrals to sources of support within the voluntary sector.

The practice 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.

The practice held a range of regular meetings for staff and stakeholders. These included practice, educational and multidisciplinary team meetings (MDT) meetings. The minutes were circulated to all staff.

We reviewed the minutes of meetings, including two recent team meetings and found these had standing agenda items to cover, inter alia, compliments and complaints, medical and nursing matters, governance, patient risk, clinical updates, and significant events.

The practice 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. For example, the practice held regular, fortnightly MDT meetings. A range of stakeholders were regularly invited to attend to discuss and contribute to patient care. These included, health visitors, community matrons, and the palliative care team.

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 such as community services, commissioners, and voluntary organisations to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

The practice supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The practice supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The practice engaged in initiatives for the benefit of patients. For example, in conjunction with input from the patient population group, it organised regular monthly walk and talk mornings at a local park. These were led by staff members and encouraged patients to get some light exercise, whilst also helping those who had become isolated to make friendships.

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.

The practice actively referred patients, where appropriate, to social prescribers who supported them their non-medical needs including isolation, housing and lifestyle issues. Over the last 12 months, the practice had made over 114 referrals to social prescribers.

The practice 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.

On review of its programme for delivery of childhood immunisations, we found the practice had narrowly failed to meet the 90% minimum achievement target for all 5 of the indicators CQC regularly reviews. Performance ranged between 84% to 89.3%. The practice told us about its proactive approach to engaging patients’ parents or guardians in the immunisations programme. This included, regular records searches to identify those eligible and overdue for immunisation, active recall systems including letters, text messages and phone contact. In addition, flexible appointments were available along with systems to enable opportunistic discussions during consultations to address any concerns.

The latest available verified data, up to 30/06/2024, showed the practice’ performance for cervical screening remained below the England target of 80% uptake for women in both age groups, 25-49 and 50-64. Its own performance data showed that it had achieved 81% uptake for the younger age group and 84% for the older group. The practice told us it took a range of actions to encourage uptake, including, a recall process with letters, text messages and phone calls. Flexible, including weekend appointments, were available as well as opportunistic offers of appointments when eligible patients attended the practice.

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

The practice 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.

We reviewed several recorded Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions for several patients. One of them did not contain sufficient information to assure us that there had been an assessment of the patients’ capacity in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). We reviewed the practice’ DNACPR policy and advised the practice of some areas that were not sufficiently clear. The practice reviewed and improved its policy and added an appendix for relevant parts of the MCA to which clinicians could refer when recording patients DNACPR decisions.