Watling 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

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

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 people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Feedback from people using the service was positive. According to the GP patient survey, people responded that they felt involved in any assessment and were confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. They were trained in care navigation and 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. Clinical and non-clinical 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. The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions and all staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

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 staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance. However, in some cases we found that records did not document where patients were being treated by secondary care services which meant they could not demonstrate up to date required monitoring before issuing prescriptions. Chronic diseases were identified and managed with some exceptions which were identified and highlighted to the provider during the clinical searches. The provider took the necessary actions to rectify those during the assessment process.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. 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 worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. 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 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. Clinical reviews were undertaken but a system was required to ensure regular and consistent monitoring where required actions were documented and reviewed. The practice outcomes for cancer screening (NHS Digital – Cervical Screening Programme Covering Statistics) were: the percentage of persons eligible for cervical cancer screening who were screened adequately within 3.5 years for persons aged 25 to 49, and within 5.5 years for persons aged 50 to 64 – 30/06/2023) was 71.4% which was below the expected 80% national target.

The service 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.