Greenbank Surgery

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 staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them with advice and support. We looked for evidence staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them with advice, support, 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.

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. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve people’s health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

People living with long-term health conditions underwent regular monitoring. Staff referred or signposted them to local support services for information, education, advice, and support linked to their needs. The practice contacted patients who did not attend cervical screening and child immunisation programmes to encourage uptake. The percentage of persons eligible for cervical screening were below expected targets for patients aged 25 to 49 years old (expected 80%, observed 74.9%) and aged 50 to 64 years old (expected 80%, observed 76.2%). We discussed this with the provider who demonstrated that people who had not attended for cancer screening were followed up and encouraged to attend. Childhood immunisation uptake showed no statistical variation in all areas.

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.

People who required monitoring underwent regular checks on their health. Leaders demonstrated that monitoring and improving outcomes for patients was important to them and they used information and data to drive improvement. Regular searches of patient’s medicines were undertaken to monitor patients. Depending on the results this included providing extra help to manage long-term conditions, advice for those on multiple medicines and better access to health checks.

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.