The Southall 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 in January 2015, we rated this key question as Good.

At this assessment in July 2026, the rating remains the same because we found no issues with the effectiveness of assessing, monitoring and improving patient needs and care. However, we found instances where clinicians did not completely follow the established guidelines related to clinical care but the provider promptly addressed the concerns.

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. 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 checkedpeople’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 previouslyundiagnosed conditions. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

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. However, we found that clinical records we saw did not always demonstrate care was provided in line with current guidance. For example, we found that the guidance for the care and clinical documentation of patients on teratogenic medicines was not always followed.

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. The practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services. The service had regular multi-disciplinary meetings to discuss and review cases related to the patients.

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. Patients with caring responsibilities were offered support and flu vaccinations including signposting to other relevant support services. The service had dedicated staff to support various health groups such as learning disability champions, and carers’ champion.

The service did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. The service had not met national targets for cervical screening and childhood immunisations. The percentage of women aged 25-49 who had an adequate cervical screening test was 70.9% which was below the 80% national target. The percentage of women aged 50-64 who had an adequate cervical screening test was 80.4% which was in line with the 80% national target.

The service was below the target uptake rates (90%) in one category of childhood immunisations. The percentage of children aged 5 who had received immunisation for measles, mumps and rubella (two doses of MMR) was 72.1%. The provider met the target rates for other childhood immunisation categories. A recall system was in place to engage patients who had not responded to health interventions, providing education on the associated health benefits. However, the impact of the recall on the uptake was yet to be known. The service completed some clinical audits to monitor and improve the outcomes for the patients. Examples included audit of management of iron-deficiency anaemia, audit of minor surgery, audit of follow up of children prescribed salbutamol without a formal asthma diagnosis and audit of bisphosphonate prescribing.

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. Our review of DNACPR records confirmed this.