Dr Karim & Dr James-Authe

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. 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 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 population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

The practice utilised Social Prescribers (SP’s) who were non-medical, and provided services to improve patient health, wellbeing, and social welfare. SP’s helped patients with issues such as loneliness, money, jobs and housing. The service worked with the local Primary Care Network (PCN) to engage with individuals identified as being at risk of poor health and provided activities to help them, for example gardening and walking groups for those at risk of cardiovascular disease.

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.

The practice monitored high priority groups such as those with long-term conditions, for example diabetes, to ensure they attended their health checkups. The practice had effective systems in place to contact those who did not attend these appointments and encourage patients to rebook and attend.

The practice had not achieved all national targets for cervical screening. For example, the practice saw 74.2% of women in the 25 to 49 years old age group had an adequate screening test within the last 3.5 years, compared to the expected national target of 80%

The practice understood the importance of immunisations and screening and worked hard to improve uptake and educate the patients both in the practice and in the community, as they were aware of some negative attitudes and health beliefs regarding the screening process.

The service promoted events within the community to raise awareness of health risks, i.e. conducting blood pressure screening to reach patients who may not routinely attend the surgery in person.

The service had a programme for the carrying out of clinical audits, and these were repeated regularly.

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.