Whittington Moor Surgery

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’s immediate and ongoing needs were fully assessed. Where appropriate this included their clinical needs and their mental and physical wellbeing. People were advised what to do if their condition got worse and where to seek further help and support. People were involved in the assessment of their needs, and support was provided where needed to maximise their involvement. The needs of carers of people using services were assessed and met. There was an Equity champion within the practice whose role was not to only support equality for patients in receiving care but to ensure that it was equal. Whilst patients with asthma received good overall management, those prescribed rescue steroids were not always followed up within a week in line with national guidance. The practice accepted this finding and told us they would implement a new process after our inspection.

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.

Staff told us long-term conditions management was carried out by practice nurses and GPs with support from the healthcare support worker. There was a lead GP for patients with diabetes and a lead practice nurse for patients with diabetes who carried out joint review clinics with a diabetic nurse specialist. Test results were sent to the GPs apart from the diabetic bloods which went to the diabetic GP lead. Clinicians could refer patients and carers to the social prescriber to maximise the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs. Patients whose first language was not English had access to translators and were offered longer appointments. Patients with a learning disability were provided with longer appointments and staff had access to British Sign Language interpreters and easy read documents. Staff told us they had completed appropriate training to support patients with a learning disability or autism. Non-clinical staff told us they had received training on identifying the rapidly deteriorating patient and knew who to go to for support. They had received training in basic life support. Receptionists co-ordinated the system in place to review and act on test results and discharge letters from secondary care.

The practice had considered the Accessible Information Standards and made adaptations in line with this. For example, a ramp to the electronic doors at the entrance, a hearing loop, parking for disabled people etc. There was an Equity champion within the practice whose role was not to only support equality for patients in receiving care but to ensure that it was equal. An audit had been conducted to review the quality of care plans for older patients and included a review of Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNACPR) plans. The overall audit showed that the care plans were good with a few recommendations made for improvements. There were plans in place to repeat the audit in 12 months’ time. An audit of asthma patients prescribed more than 12 short acting inhalers in 12 months showed potential overuse of these inhalers in 25 out of 38 patients. Actions were put in place to follow up these patients, recommendations made and planned to follow up in 12 months’ time. Most of our clinical searches showed that the management of patients with long-term conditions was in line with national guidance. Patients with asthma received good overall management, however those prescribed rescue steroids were not always followed up within a week in line with national guidance. The practice told us they would implement a new process to address this concern after our inspection. We will continue to monitor their progress in this area.

Overall, the most recent GP patient survey results demonstrated that patients felt they received effective care. This was supported by the fact that patients felt listened to and involved in decision about their care. For example, 96% had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to during their last general practice appointment compared with a local average of 94% and a national average of 93%.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.