Dunsville 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 monitored people’s care and treatment and supported them to live healthier lives. 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.

Staff at Dunsville Medical Centre supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice, and control. The practice supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The practice focused 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 the national cervical screening programme, bowel cancer screening, childhood immunisations and covid and flu vaccination programmes.

Dunsville Medical Centre routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive, consistent, and fully met the expectations of people themselves.

Staff we spoke to on the day of our visit stated that they believed the surgery provided good care to patients and service users and that adequate systems were in place to monitor patients with long-term conditions and patients prescribed high risk medication.

The provider exceeded the World Health Organisation’s target of 95% for the uptake of 3 childhood immunisations and were above the 90% minimum target for the other two.

They also performed better than the England average in relation to several cancer screening programmes, including screening for breast and bowel cancers. For example, breast screening coverage of 53 to 70 year olds was 75.7% (England average 70.4%) and bowel cancer screening coverage of 60 to 74 year olds was 76% (England average 71.8%).

Screening for cervical cancer, however, was below the 80% national target in both the 50 to 64 year old age group, and the 25 to 49 year old age group with 73% of those eligible in the older age range having had an adequate screening test within the last 5.5 years and 73.8% of those eligible in the younger age range having had an adequate screening test within the last 3.5 years. The provider appeared to be aware of this and confirmed that there was a system in place for monitoring patients who did not attend for screening and follow ups.

The provider offered NHS health checks for 40 to 74-year-olds and annual health checks for patients with learning disabilities and patients with severe mental health conditions. Local monitoring arrangements for ensuring these checks were completed were in place.

Prescribing rates for psychotropic medicines (medicines used to treat mental health conditions) and broad-spectrum antibiotics were below the national average. The rate for gabapentinoids (medicines commonly used to treat neuropathic pain and certain neurological disorders) however was significantly above the national average (279.6% as compared to 136.2% nationally).

The provider regularly conducted clinical audits to help improve patient outcomes. For example, a recent audit reviewed pregabalin prescribing to ensure it was being used for the correct condition, at the correct dose, and that appropriate checks had been completed for any interactions or reasons why it should not be prescribed.

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.