Olive 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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as requires improvement. Throughout this inspection, the provider demonstrated wide-ranging improvements that have been made and embedded across systems. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.
 

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 were effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. We carried out a series of searches on the services' clinical systems as part of this assessment that showed evidence of safe process for continuing long term conditions management.

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 checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community.

The provider had effective 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.

The results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey were slightly below national average. For example, 87% felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them, compared to 92% nationally and 93% locally, and 86% felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment, compared to 90% nationally and 91% locally.
 

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 clinical 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 experience of people who used the service as indicated in the 2026 National GP Patient Survey showed that 90% of respondents (compared to 93% nationally and locally) stated that during their last appointment they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to.
 

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. Leaders we spoke with told us the service used meetings and practice learning time to discuss clinical review findings with all staff and this was evidenced in documents we viewed. Leaders also described how the service conducted palliative care gold standard framework meetings regularly with district nurses to discuss palliative care and end of life care reviews.

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 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 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 practice was performing below the national targets for screening and immunisations. For example, the national cervical screening uptake target is 80%. The most recent published data as of 30 June 2024 showed the practice achieved 42.9% uptake among patients aged 25 to 49 years and 63% among those aged 50 to 64 years. Recent unverified data as of 22 August 2026 provided by the practice shows improvement, with 52% uptake among patients aged 25 to 49 years and 74% among those aged 50 to 64 years.

Leaders we spoke with acknowledged the challenges faced was primarily due to the demographic population the practice served and cultural beliefs. They described how continued work is ongoing within the community to encourage higher uptake, with staff contacting patients to explain the importance and benefits of screening and immunisations. Leaders discussed plans to hold talks with community groups in person to encourage a higher uptake and evidenced the practice recall process, how invites and follow up calls are made to patients and that all attempts are clearly recorded in the patients’ records.

From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance. The service had established systems to monitor non-attendance for both immunisation and screening appointments.
 

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff received mental capacity training that was up to date. Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded.

A review of clinical records for Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) showed that appropriate decisions were in place and coded in a way that could identify patients. (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.

The 2026 National GP Patient Survey results indicated that 85% of respondents had stated that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment, compared to 92% nationally and locally. Staff understood the importance of ensuring that people fully understood what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before they delivered care or treatment. There was a system in place to record people’s consent appropriately.