Claverley Medical 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.

The provider had made improvements in the following areas:

The routine monitoring of patients with long-term conditions was mainly carried out in line with guidance.

Quality improvement activity had been implemented to demonstrate improved outcomes for patients.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

This service scored 67 (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. The majority of people felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. This was reflected in the national GP survey 2025 where 95% of practice respondents felt their needs were met during their last appointment. Reception staff told us they were a small practice and were aware of the needs of the local practice population. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Clinical staff had access to templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. However, some medicine reviews we sampled were just coded and were not an in-depth assessment of medicines to ensure those prescribed were effective. The provider had 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 through their primary care network (PCN).

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. Overall clinical records we sampled demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

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.

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.

People had access to services provided by the local primary care network (PCN) and had developed a positive working relationship with the Patient Participation Group (PPG). The PPG representative considered the group were listened to and members could freely raise things in and outside of the meetings held.

The practice 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. Patients had access to a social prescriber via the PCN for emotional support and signposting to community groups and other agencies to improve their health and wellbeing. During our site visit we saw a range of health promotion information material was available within the waiting room and was also available on the provider website.

The practice monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. A review of the most recently published data showed the practice had improved their cervical screening uptake and had met the national target of 80% within the last 3.5 years for their eligible population aged 25 to 49 years old and had exceeded the target within the last 5.5 years for their eligible population aged 50 to 64 years old.

The practice had met the minimum based target of 90% in 3 of the 5 childhood immunisation indicators, 95% in 1 indicator and was below 80% uptake for the percentage of children aged 5 who have received immunisation for measles, mumps and rubella (two doses of MMR). The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends a rate of 95% for all routine childhood vaccinations. Those practices achieving this level are considered as performing for this indicator and are an example of good practice. The practice advised of the challenges they had experienced with the uptake of MMR. They told us they had a small number of children on their patient list and had contacted all parents for children multiple times to encourage them to engage in the vaccination programme, but some parents had declined from immunising their children.

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 and were able to share examples in relation to obtaining capacity and consent. The practice clinical system identified 6 patients as having a Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) form in place. 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, retained by the person and scanned onto their clinical records. During our site visit we sampled the records of 5 people and found not all ReSPECT forms were readily accessible or had been scanned onto their records. These were later obtained and shared with us.