Parks Surgery Limited Also known as Pennington Park 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

We assessed all the quality statements in this key question. Our rating for this key question is good. At this inspection we found robust systems to keep up to date with current evidence-based practices and to manage test results. There was clear evidence of clinicians’ training and supervision. During this assessment we found that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them with advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed the care being provided and worked with other services to achieve good outcomes.

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.

Feedback from people who used the service was positive. People felt involved in the assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs.

Staff and leaders were aware of the needs of the local community. Staff told us how they checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. We discussed the way in which patients’ needs were assessed and the provider was able to demonstrate that staff shared clear and accurate information with relevant professionals when deciding care delivery for patients. The provider demonstrated they used registers for people with learning disabilities, mental health conditions, long term conditions, palliative care needs, and those who were carers to ensure that people’s needs were assessed and managed appropriately. We found no concerns with how patients’ care wellbeing was assessed for the sample of patients whose care we looked at.

The practice had systems and processes in place to keep clinicians up to date with current evidence-based practice. We found that patients’ immediate and ongoing needs were assessed. The practice carried out structured annual medicines reviews for patients with long-term health conditions. There was a programme of clinical and non-clinical audits that were used to monitor quality and make improvement when actions were identified. The practice worked closely with the primary care network to improve health inequalities.

When we spoke to members of the patient participation group, they told us that they felt they had the correct level of support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help them manage any long-term conditions. They also advised that the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at considering their mental wellbeing.

Staff told us that they were encouraged to learn about new and innovative approaches to help improve the way their service delivers care. Staff demonstrated how clinical meetings were used to ensure evidence-based care was followed. The findings of our clinical searches showed areas for improvement and an action plan was put in place to address these. Following the inspection the provider demonstrated to us they had completed all the actions required.

The provider had systems to ensure staff were up to date with national legislation, evidence-based good practice and required standards. Within the clinical system staff followed templates to ensure care was delivered in the most up to date and consistent way.

Members of the patient participation group told us they had been referred to other services appropriately.

Staff felt their ideas about how to improve the service were listened to. Staff told us they were kept up to date through practice meetings. The minutes of meetings were shared with all colleagues.

There was no negative feedback from partners about how services worked together. The provider works closely with the primary care network to ensure best care is available and given to patients.

The provider had processes in place, so information was shared between teams and services to ensure continuity of care. The provider had regular meetings to ensure all staff, teams and services worked well together. The monthly staff meetings had standardised agendas which included learning from complaints and incidents, vulnerable patients, best practice and new guidance updates and practice news and updates.

When speaking to members of the patient participation group they advised that they felt that information available to them from the practice helped them as individuals to live healthier lives. There was a wide range of information within the waiting area that they found useful and informative.

Staff and leaders showed us ways in which they worked to support patients to live healthier lives. The provider worked closely with the primary care network to support patients to utilise varying initiatives and services. The practice put on flu clinics at weekends when the practice was closed to help patients get the vaccination in preparedness for the coming winter.

Patients were supported to manage their health and wellbeing and where possible reduce their need for future care and treatment. They were told when they needed to seek further help and what to do if their condition deteriorated. This could be via online NHS App or by speaking with a member of the practice team.

We saw that people were able to view test results as soon as they became available in a way that best suited their individual means. When speaking to members of the patient participation group we were advised that people felt their health was monitored appropriately and explained to them in plain English.

We observed the way reception staff dealt with people whilst on site. The staff were passionate about their roles and understood the needs of the people that they dealt with. The patients we witnessed talking to reception staff asking for help were directed to the most appropriate care for their needs resulting in the right care at the right time being delivered.

As part of the inspection process several clinical record searches were undertaken by a CQC GP specialist advisor. These searches identified a lot of good work by the practice but also highlighted an area of concern. The concern raised was around the medicines and healthcare regulatory alerts and how these were processed by the practice. This concern was discussed, an action plan was put in place to address this. Following the assessment evidence was provided by the provider to show that the actions had been completed. We are now assured that the practice has the correct processes in place to monitor and improve outcomes for the patients.

Following the supply of evidence as outlined above we are assured that patients are receiving the correct level of monitoring. For example, patients with long term conditions or for those on a high-risk medication there needed to be an improved system in place. The correct literature for patients on medications for an extended period has now been shared with these patients. We are assured that patients are receiving the right outcomes.

We spoke to members of the patient participation group and people told us they received information about care and treatment in a way they could understand and have appropriate support and time to make decisions.

All staff employed at the practice understood the importance of ensuring that people fully understand what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before they delivered care or treatment. All mandatory training on mental capacity and consent as appropriate to the level for the individual member of staff had been completed.

There were Policies, protocols, and guidance in place to support people to consent to care and treatment being offered or recommended to them and clinicians supported people to make decisions. This helped individuals and families to make an informed decision in circumstances where it was deemed a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation order would be appropriate. Where appropriate, they assessed and recorded a person’s mental capacity to make a decision within the patient record. Staff had undertaken Mental Capacity Act 2005 training.