Leatside Health 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.
Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community and recognised that people may have different needs when accessing the service. Where staff identified that a person required a different service, they were able to signpost or use established referral processes to direct them to the most appropriate support.
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.
When conducting care reviews to support people’s wider health and wellbeing, clear goals were identified. This including utilising clinical assessments such as the comprehensive geriatric assessment which is a holistic assessment of people’s needs.
The service had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions such as diabetes.
Staff could refer people with social needs, to a health and wellbeing team which comprised of care co-ordinators (someone who helps people navigate the health and social care system) and health coaches (someone who supports people to improve their health and wellbeing by offering lifestyle advice, motivational support, and practical guidance).
 

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 used evidence-based approaches to delivering care and treatment such as a mass vaccination programme and the use of assessment tools such as the comprehensive geriatric assessment. A comprehensive geriatric assessment is a detailed, holistic assessment of an older person’s health and wellbeing, conducted by a multidisciplinary team to identify their medical, functional, psychological, and social needs so that a personalised care plan can be created. We also saw the service used frailty scores as part of their assessments.
As part of our assessment, a number of set clinical record searches were undertaken by a CQC GP specialist advisor.
We identified there were effective reviews and monitoring of people following receipt of medicines and healthcare products regulatory agency (MHRA) alerts. For example, those relating to teratogenic drugs (medicines that can harm an unborn baby).
 

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. They worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services such as the pharmacy team provided by the PCN..
Multidisciplinary meetings took place and included services in the wider network. The meetings were well established and included the community nurses, a dementia practitioner, voluntary sector colleagues, and care coordinators.
Staff felt teams in the service worked well together. One member of staff told us ‘’the team work well together and always want to do better’’ and another told us ‘’everyone working together to provide the best care we can for patients’’.
Team meetings were held within the service and staff were invited to attend. Clinicians working in the service met daily to share information and to have clinical discussions.
 

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.
The service worked with the health and wellbeing team which is provided by the PCN. This team included a care coordinator and a health coach who gave people additional support to live healthier lives.
 

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 not met the 2 national targets for cervical screening of 80% from data published in June 2024.
The service had not achieved the average national targets for 4 of 5 childhood immunisations and from data published in 2024/25.
The service was working towards improving its immunisation uptake. There were processes to follow up people who did not attend screening and children who were not brought in for immunisations. Staff also told us that they share information with other services such as the community screening liaison nurse if there were concerns about a person or child. The service also demonstrated engagement with the NHS England Improving Immunisation Uptake programme.
There were processes for monitoring peoples long-term conditions with follow up actions taken if people did not attend their appointments. Where people did not respond, there were additional resources available through the PCN care coordinator teams to support people who may be experiencing barriers to accessing their appointment.
 

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 and were able to describe to us how they gain consent as part of people’s health consultations.
People’s capacity to make decisions and consent were clearly recorded and we saw examples of these in care plans and people’s medical records. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions and treatment escalation plans (TEP) were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.