Austen Road 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 reviewed 3 quality statement 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. Patients were assessed using a range of assessment tools. We saw evidence of audits carried out to ensure patients care was appropriate. Communication needs of patients were considered and we saw that the practice could support patients with translation requirements, or hearing or visual disabilities. The needs of carers of patients were also considered. Staff were able to use social prescribing and could sign post patients and their carers to additional support. Our review of the remote searches of patient records showed that care and treatment was evidence-based and in line with good practice standards. Staff were up to date with national legislation, evidence-based good practice and required standards. Referrals to specialist services were documented, contained the required information and there was a system to monitor delays in referrals. Our review of the remote searches of patient records showed that patients with long terms conditions were being routinely monitored and re-called when required. The practice shared clear and accurate information with relevant professionals when deciding care delivery for patients with long-term conditions. Medicine alerts were discussed at meetings and audits created to ensure patients were receiving the most up to date care. The practice routinely monitored patient’s care and treatment and their outcomes. These meet agreed expectations as set out in legislation, standards and evidence-based clinical guidance.

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.

Patients had been appropriately assessed and their needs understood. Patients had access to appropriate health assessments. There was appropriate and timely follow up on the outcome of health assessments and checks where abnormalities or risk factors were identified. Patients were assessed using a range of assessment tools. For example, the practice used a clinical tool to identify older patients who were living with moderate or severe frailty. 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. Staff were able to use social prescribing and signpost patients and their carers to additional support. All patients with a learning disability were offered an annual health check. The practice had a system for vaccinating patients with an underlying medical condition according to the recommended schedule. Flu, shingles, and pneumonia vaccinations were offered to relevant patients.

During staff interviews we were told how they could support patients with translation requirements, or hearing or visual disabilities. Patients with Learning Disabilities were offered longer appointments and at time that suited the patient, for example the last patient in the evening.

Results from the national patient survey showed positive results. Patient feedback from the national patient survey showed that 90% of patients said last time they had a general practice appointment; the healthcare professional was good or very good at treating them with care and concern. The national average was 84%. The national patient survey showed that 91% of patients said the healthcare professional was good or very good at listening to them. The national average was 85%. The national patient survey showed that 94% of patients said they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to. The national average was 93%.

Staff we spoke with told us that they had regular learning opportunities. The provider’s systems ensured that staff were up to date with national legislation, evidence-based good practice and required standards. Nurses were able to access training in order to keep up date with their skill base. GPs and clinical staff were able to access information regarding National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance and best practice through the Integrated Care Board (ICB) as well as meetings including lunch and learn and quarterly Primary Care Network meetings.

The practice 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 practice had up to date and relevant policies and standard operating procedures. The practice participated in relevant local and national audits which were based on national guidance. Our review of the remote searches of patient records showed that patients were being effectively and safely managed.

Referrals to specialist services were documented, contained the required information and there was a system to monitor delays in referrals.

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 reviewed patient records for long term conditions and found patients whose test results indicated a potential of a long-term condition was appropriately followed up and additional tests completed. This included chronic kidney disease and diabetes.

We interviewed staff members including health care assistants (HCA), Nurses, reception staff, and administrators, as well as the practice manager and GPs. We discussed the use of audits to ensure positive outcomes. Staff interviewed felt confident that audits were consistently used to ensure positive outcomes for patients. They told us that their involvement in meetings, including clinical meetings, and attending training ensured they were kept up to date with best practice. Staff told us that safety alerts were discussed at meetings and where necessary audits created. They also told us they were involved in the investigation of significant events investigated and outcomes were discussed at team meetings.

Patients who used the service consistently experience positive outcomes. These meet agreed expectations as set out in legislation, standards and evidence-based clinical guidance. The practice had arrangements for following up failed attendance of children’s appointments. For example, childhood immunisation. There were effective approaches to monitor patients care and treatment and their outcomes. We found there was a comprehensive programme of clinical audit and second cycle audits. For example, the practice had audited patients prescribed a particular medicine for swelling caused by too much fluid trapped in the body's tissues and the treatment of high blood pressure. This was due to an increased risk in skin cancer. The practice discussed this with the patients found from the audit and their medicines changed. Further audits had been completed to ensure no new patients were on this medicine. Our review of the remote searches of patient records showed that patients were being effectively and safely managed. We saw evidence of continuous improvements made to patients care and treatment.

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.