Whitemoor 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 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 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.

Data from the GP patient survey showed that 94% of respondents stated that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. This was comparable with the national average of 91%.

Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments, disabilities 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. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

Our remote searches identified 41 people with a potential missed diagnosis of chronic kidney disease (CKD) meaning that monitoring prompts may have been missed. Immediately following our assessment, the provider reviewed these findings and found only 8 of these people had a likely missed diagnosis. We saw that where action was required it had been taken.

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.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. For example, they worked with the PCN to deliver innovative services such as group consultations and a pain cafe for people experiencing chronic pain. 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. The pharmacy team from the Integrated Care Board told us that the practice engaged well with them.

Feedback from staff was overwhelmingly positive about how teams and different staff groups worked together to provide care and treatment. They used words such as brilliant, supportive and amazing to describe it.

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.

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 practice met national targets for screening and immunisations. Five out of the 5 indicators showed that the practice had met the 90% target for childhood immunisations of which 2 indicators had reached the WHO target of 95%. The practice’s cervical screening rate for people aged 25 to 49 years was 80% and 79% for people aged 50 to 64 years. These were compatible with the national target of 80%.

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 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. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.