Farrow 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

Overall, we found that the practice provided effective care and treatment. At the inspection in April 2023, we found issues with the documentation of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) orders. Uptake of childhood vaccinations and cervical screening at the practice was also lower than national averages. In this assessment we found that DNACPR and ReSPECT forms were completed in line with guidance. Childhood vaccinations and cervical screening rates remained below national targets. The practice was working to improve this, for example by putting in an application to provide an enhanced access cervical screening service on site. Our review of the clinical searches of patient records showed that patients were being effectively managed.

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.

As part of the assessment process, we asked the practice to invite patients to share their experience of the service. From the feedback we received we saw no indication of concern in this area.

We spoke with members of the management team who explained how patients requiring monitoring were supported and managed. This included inviting for annual health reviews and monitoring checks.

Patient’s accessibility and communication needs were recorded, and they were supported accordingly. There was a care navigation process in place and staff received training for this. The practice had a palliative care register with 55 patients and these patients were reviewed in monthly multi-disciplinary meetings and supported to make informed decisions about their future. A review of clinical records showed that generally patients were effectively managed by the practice. This included the management of patients with long-term conditions including asthma, chronic kidney disease, diabetes retinopathy and hypothyroidism. We found some issues with follow up of patients who were prescribed two or more courses of rescue steroids. However, the practice responded quickly to this by implementing actions to avoid future reoccurrence. Staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation, to a wellbeing worker.

As part of the assessment process, we asked the practice to invite patients to share their experience of the service. From the feedback we received we saw no indication of concern in this area.

Clinical staff told us they followed best practice guidance when carrying out their work. They also told us they had access to training and learning opportunities and were supported with their professional development.

The practice had systems and processes in place to keep clinical staff up to date with current evidence-based practice. Our review of the clinical searches of patient records showed that patients were being effectively and safely managed.

As part of the assessment process, we asked the practice to invite patients to share their experience of the service. From the feedback we received we saw no indication of concern in this area.

Staff and leaders told us about services they worked closely with. This included the trust pharmacy team, and the Proactive Care team (PACT). They told us they routinely shared information with other teams and services, and this included any reasonable adjustments that patients required. External professionals and staff from the practice’s primary care network (PCN) were invited to relevant meetings. We were told that where they did not attend, meeting minutes were not routinely shared with them, but any relevant information was relayed to them.

We spoke with the NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board ahead of this assessment. From the feedback we received from them there was no indication of concern in this area.

We saw there had been engagement with external bodies to drive improvement within the practice. This included the NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board and the Local Medical Committee. Multidisciplinary team meetings were held to discuss clinical cases and patients on the palliative care register. We saw evidence of the practice working with other services to allow safe and effective care for patients. This included work focusing on improving the pathway and patient experience and safety within the Pharmacy First service, with the aim of increasing collaborative working between community pharmacists and primary care networks.

As part of the assessment process, we asked the practice to invite patients to share their experience of the service. From the feedback we received we saw no indication of concern in this area.

Staff told us about the ways in which they supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing, and to live healthier lives. This included referral to the in-house wellbeing worker and encouraging patients to attend health checks and reviews. Staff were aware that uptake rates for childhood immunisations and cervical screening were lower than local and national averages and were taking steps to improve this.

There were processes in place to invite patients for relevant health checks. For example, in the last 12 months 621 patients were eligible for an NHS health check. Of these, 600 were invited and 154 attended. There were also systems in place to identify patients in need of extra support, for example those with a learning disability. The practice had 81 patients on their learning disability register. Of these, 70 patients were eligible for a health check and 69 had been undertaken. The practice had also identified 200 patients as carers and had invited 185 of these patients for an influenza vaccine during the last flu season. Of these, 28 attended despite 2 or 3 invites being sent via different methods of communication. There was an in-house wellbeing worker who signposted patients to relevant services to support and improve their health and wellbeing, for example to help them stop smoking. Information to support patients was also available on the practice website.

The GP Patient Survey for 2024 showed that practice did not perform so well in areas such as patients having enough support from local services or organisations to manage long-term conditions. As this data was published in July 2024, the practice had not yet taken any actions in response to this. Our review of patient clinical records showed that the practice worked effectively to monitor and improve outcomes for patients.

Staff we spoke with could clearly outline the systems in place to recall and review patients and understood their role in this process. They told us how they took a proactive approach to encourage patients to attend for cervical screening and childhood immunisations, for example through the use of a family worker who promoted services within nurseries and external events.

Our review of patient clinical records showed the practice worked with patients to monitor and improve outcomes. This included the management of patients with long-term conditions. We saw that the practice was working with their integrated care board to look at what neighbouring practices were doing to increase screening and immunisation uptake. They had also put in an application to provide an enhanced access cervical screening service on site and anticipated that this would improve the uptake rate. Appropriate registers were held to ensure effective monitoring of specific groups such as those on palliative care.

Our review of patient clinical records showed that the practice effectively monitored patient’s care and treatment. The practice monitored outcomes from their wellbeing worker, such as the number of patients seen, and services that patients were signposted to. For example, they found that from April to June 2024 an increasing number of patients at the practice had been discussing stopping smoking and been referred on for specialist support. The practice’s cervical screening uptake rate at June 2023 was at 58%, which was below the 80% national target. The practice’s childhood immunisation uptake rates at March 2023 were below the 90% national minimum target. In addition, all rates had declined since March 2022.

As part of the assessment process, we asked the practice to invite patients to share their experience of the service. From the feedback we received we saw no indication of concern in this area.

Staff told us how they dealt with consent and how they helped patients make decisions about their care, including the use of relevant guidelines and recording consent.

There was a consent policy in place which covered areas such as capacity, children’s consent and recording decisions. Carers and advocates were involved in consultation processes where required, and resources were used to support patient’s understanding of their treatment.