Modality Mid Sussex

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. This was because not all patients with a long-term condition or a potential missed diagnosis had received appropriate monitoring and clinical review. Patients’ needs were not always assessed, and care and treatment were not always delivered in line with current legislation, standards and evidence-based guidance. At this inspection we found that the provider had made improvements and is now rated as 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 practice made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The results of the national GP survey indicated people felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual needs. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Reception staff used digital flags in 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. Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. In addition, the practice had a dedicated team of care coordinators and social prescribers who provided holistic support to patients.

The practice now had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. For example, at our last inspection we found patients with a potential missed diagnosis of diabetes were not always followed up with appropriate blood tests. At this inspection our remote clinical searches identified 24 patients with a potential missed diagnosis of diabetes. We reviewed the records of 5 of these patients and identified all patients had received follow up blood tests in appropriate timescales, to confirm diagnosis of diabetes.

The practice planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Whilst systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation, care wasn’t always delivered in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Our clinical searches showed that improvements had been made to care delivery since our last inspection. For example, we reviewed the records for 5 patients out of 116 patients with asthma who had 2 or more courses of rescue steroids in the last 12 months. For all 5 patients a thorough assessment had been undertaken and recorded at the time of issuing rescue steroids. All 5 had had an annual review of their asthma in the last year. However, whilst patients were given advice on what to do if symptoms worsened it was noted that follow up appointments were not always completed in line with the timescales set out in national guidelines. After the inspection the practice told us they had implemented aprocess for following up patients 48 hours after initiating steroids for an exacerbation of asthma, in line with guidelines.

The practice worked well across teams and services to support people.

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 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 identified 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. Group consultations were offered for patients with diabetes and non-diabetic hyperglycaemia, providing structured lifestyle management, dietary advice, exercise guidance, sleep improvement strategies, and overall well-being education. Additionally, targeted one-to-one coaching was available through an on-line coaching service, supporting patients with diabetes and non-diabetic hyperglycaemia in making sustainable lifestyle changes.

The practice routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. However, feedback we received from patients indicated that their care did not always meet their expectations and that some had not received regular monitoring.

National targets for screening and immunisations were not always met. Data from the UK Health Security Agency showed that practice performance for all of the 5-childhood immunisation was significantly below the minimum 90 per cent coverage targets. The practice told us that this was because they had not been submitting data correctly. They sent us their own data up to the end of February 2025 (unverified by CQC) which showed coverage for the 5 childhood immunisations ranged from 70 and 89 percent which meant the minimum 90% coverage target had not yet been achieved. The practice told us it had undertaken a significant piece of work to ensure the accuracy of our immunisation lists, alongside strengthening its recall processes with support and training from the local Increasing Immunisation Uptake Nurse its nurses were contacting parents directly to offer advice, reassurance, and education around the importance of timely vaccination which helped address concerns and support informed decision-making. The practice planned to introduce regular Saturday immunisation clinics to increase accessibility for working families and reduce missed opportunities. Cervical screening uptake was also below the national uptake target of 80% at 72%. The practice offered weekend cervical screening uptakes to help increase uptake.

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. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.