Arran 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.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been 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 service made sure patient’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. 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 patient’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 previously undiagnosed conditions. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

Data from the National GP patient survey 2024 showed that of those people completing the survey 91%felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment. This was above local average (87%) and in line with the national average (90%).

The service mostly 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. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was mostly provided in line with current guidance.

The management team had identified where clinical staff required further training and this had been arranged.

From records we reviewed, we found that clinical staff could not always demonstrate what had been discussed and agreed with patients, for example, asthma care plans. We discussed this with staff, who told us they would take immediate action to amend the way they recorded this information to reflect care and treatment was planned and delivered with patients.

The service worked well across teams and services to support patients. Staff knew patients well and worked within different teams to respond to patients’ needs. They communicated with external services as required to ensure continuity of care or to access specialist services.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. However, clinicians did not always document in patient’s records when information had been reviewed. For example, in some records we reviewed, there was no documentation to indicate that a clinician had reviewed blood test results before re-issuing prescriptions, although we saw this had taken place the records were not updated accordingly.

Data from the National GP patient survey 2024 showed that of those patients completing the survey, 90%felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment. This was in line with the local (90%) and national averages (92%).

The service supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported patients to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff focused 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 practice had developed action plans to improve the uptake of breast and bowel cancer screening.

We reviewed evidence that showed the practice was signposting patients to use a digital application (app) called ‘getUBetter’. Evidence indicated the practice was using this app well when compared with other practices in the primary care network. The app provided new opportunities for their patients to self-manage their muscle or joint conditions as soon as they presented at the practice.

Our clinical searches and record reviews indicated that most patients were followed up and monitored in line with guidelines. Where we identified concerns with patient’s monitoring or care, we discussed this with management. Management told us there had been a recent change in clinical staff that carried out this monitoring, however this role has now been reassigned. Following the inspection, management told us any patients that required monitoring or review as identified by our searches would be called in for review.

The practice were not meeting national targets for cancer screening and children’s immunisations.

Published data we reviewed as part of this inspection was for both practices (Arran medical Centre and Sheldon Medical Centre). The management team had methods to break down data and see which children for example registered with Arran Medical Centre required immunisations so they could be called in. The practice also kept lists of patients requiring cancer screening, so that they could be called in. The practice management team closely monitored this data.

The practice had produced action plans to improve uptake with cancer screening and children’s immunisations.

We reviewed a range of clinical audits the practice had carried out in the previous 2 years to monitor care and treatment. We found that not all audits showed improved outcomes and an action plan had not always been implemented to improve outcomes further.

The practice had carried out an audit in May 2025 to monitor outcomes following minor surgery including post-operative infection rates. The provider had formed an action plan to improve the quality of care being delivered. At the time of the inspection, these actions had not yet been implemented.

The service told patients 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.