Studholme 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 patients in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them with advice and support. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same. We reviewed 3 quality statements in the Effective key question – Assessing needs, Delivering evidence based care and treatment and Monitoring and improving outcomes. The scores for the other quality statements are based on the previous rating for this key question.

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 received little feedback relating to assessing needs, however a few people told us they would prefer to have face to face medicines reviews rather than these being done over the telephone.

Staff told us how they supported patients who required accessibility adjustments, for example with translation requirements, hearing or visual aids. Patients with learning disabilities were offered longer appointments or at a time that suited them, such as when the practice was quieter. Staff also told us they tried to prioritise continuity of care for vulnerable groups. Staff described the dedicated care coordinators in place to support specific groups of patients, for example there was a care coordinator whose responsibility was to support patients who were also carers. Staff were able to use social prescribing and could signpost patients and their carers to additional support. Staff told us they completed training to ensure they were up to date with any new practices in healthcare.

The service assessed needs and delivered care in line with relevant and current evidence-based guidance and standards, including National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) best practice guidelines. Staff used these guidelines to deliver care and treatment that met patients’ needs. Audits were carried out to ensure patients’ care was appropriately managed in line with current guidance. The needs of carers of patients were also considered. Our review of patients’ clinical records found that in some instances the recording of medicines reviews could be more detailed rather than just a code entry.

The National GP Patient Survey does not include questions specific to this question. The feedback we received from people who used the service reflected no concerns around this area.

Staff told us that they had regular meetings where any changes to good practice were discussed. The provider ensured that staff were up to date with national legislation, evidence-based practice and required standards. Clinicians, including nurses and paramedics, were able to access training in order to keep up date with their required skill base. GPs and clinical staff were able to access information regarding National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance.

The service had systems and processes to keep clinicians up to date with current evidence-based practice. Care and treatment were delivered in line with legislation, standards, and evidence-based guidance, including NICE and other expert professional bodies, to achieve effective outcomes. The service had up to date and relevant policies and standard operating procedures. The service carried out quarterly audits which were based on national guidance, to ensure that medicines were prescribed appropriately. Our review of patients’ clinical records showed that patients were being effectively and safely managed. For example, patients who had been prescribed 2 or more courses of rescue steroids in a 12-month period had been managed appropriately. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

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.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The National GP Patient Survey does not include questions specific to this quality statement and feedback we received from people who used the service reflected no concerns around this area

Staff described systems and processes in place to monitor and improve outcomes for patients. This included both providing specialist clinics, such as complex wound care, and hosting specialist community services, including diabetic eye screening, within the practice. Staff told us that they were involved in meetings, including clinical meetings, and attended training to ensure they were kept up to date with best practice. Staff told us that safety alerts were discussed at clinical meetings and where necessary searches of the clinical records system carried out. They also told us they were involved in the investigation of significant events and outcomes were discussed at team meetings.

The service had a recall system in place to ensure patients were contacted to book appointments for reviews, including those people with long term conditions.

We found, from the patients’ clinical records we reviewed, that patients generally experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance.

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.