Elliott Chappell Health Centre Also known as St Andrews 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 2 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for this area with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question remains good. We found staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this. They monitored and improved outcomes for patients by carrying out clinical audits.

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.

We did not receive any feedback from members of the public regarding this service. The evidence we reviewed did not show any concerns about people’s experience of involving people in assessing needs.

The provider was the clinical lead at the service, they discussed with us at interview how patients’ needs were assessed and delivered in line with current legislation. We saw several examples of the minutes of monthly clinical meetings. They told us, for example, that all learning disability patients were recalled on their specific birth month and offered flexible appointment times to suit the needs of the patient and family members. They also told us that the service had access to a Primary Care Network (PCN) nurse who was responsible for all patients that were deemed as housebound.

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 receive any feedback from members of the public regarding this service. The evidence we reviewed did not show any concerns about assessing and reviewing their health care needs.

Staff carrying out long-term condition reviews had received appropriate training for the role. We discussed our clinical searches with the lead GP. The lead GP explained the process for monitoring patients on palliative care and told us that meetings were held on a quarterly basis with a lead nurse and patients discussed were risk rated for urgent and non-urgent care provision.

The provider monitored and improved outcomes for patients by carrying out audits on antibiotic prescribing and regular assessments on DOAC management.

We had no concerns with any of the patient outcome data regarding care which we looked at.

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.