Cradley 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

Patients need were assessed, and care and treatment was delivered in line with current legislation. Evidence-based guidance was supported by clear pathways and tools.

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.

People told us they felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment, with support provided where necessary.

Staff told us they knew how to prioritise patients who reported symptoms which could be clinical emergencies. Patients were told when they needed to seek further help and what to do if their condition deteriorated. Staff we spoke with were effective at booking appointments to ensure patient needs were assessed and the appropriate action was taken such as the type of appointment required and any necessary signposting.

The practice had registers for patients with different health requirements. The practice invited people for reviews and health checks according to their needs. They combined patients’ annual health checks to their appointment to ensure continuity with the same professional and prevent patients attending multiple times in a short period of time. The practice identified people with caring responsibilities and had a carers coordinator to support their needs. There was a carers policy that detailed how the practice identified carers which included on New Patient Registration forms and promoting carer information on their website. The patient record system was used to alert staff to patients who were identified as being a carer. We saw no evidence of discrimination when staff made care and treatment decisions.

People we spoke with told us they could get information and advice about their health, care, and support.

Clinical staff told us they worked to current NICE guidance and local clinical protocols. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about guidance updates and when reviewing the clinical system, we saw records of evidence-based treatments being offered to patients.

The practice had systems and processes to keep clinicians up to date with current evidence-based practice and safety alerts. The practice participated in relevant local and national audits which were based on national guidance.

People told us they felt their care and support was co-ordinated and services worked well together. For example, one person told us when they had previously been referred to another service it was done in a coordinated manner.

Staff worked collaboratively with each other and external healthcare services in assessing, planning and delivering care to meet patients needs. Information was shared between teams and services to ensure continuity of care, for example when tasks were delegated or when patients were referred between services.

We did not receive any concerns from commissioners or other system partners about how staff, teams and services work together at the practice.

The provider had a GDPR (general data protection regulation) policy in place. There were systems and processes to share information with staff and other agencies to enable them to deliver safe care and treatment. This included regular multidisciplinary meetings between the practice and other health and social care professionals such as district nurses and frailty team.

People told us the practice takes a preventative approach to health. For example, in the Village newsletter they provided advice to help people quit smoking. Self-help advice tools were also available for patients on the practice website.

The practice identified patients who may need extra support and directed them to relevant services. This included patients in the last 12 months of their lives, patients at risk of developing a long-term condition and carers.

We observed there was health and social prescribing information for patients throughout the practice waiting area. This included information on diabetes, mental health support and dementia research.

We had limited feedback regarding peoples experience of monitoring and improving outcomes. However, feedback we did receive was positive stating patients felt listened to and involved in their care and treatment provided.

We saw patients’ treatment and care was monitored to ensure they were receiving effective care.

The practice had a comprehensive programme of quality improvement and used information about care and treatment to make improvements.

There were systems in place for quality improvement within the service such as audits to improve practices and opportunities for both patients and staff to provide feedback on services.

People told us their rights around consent were respected.

Staff understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making. Staff told us they understood Gillick competence and who to go to in the practice if they needed support with this.

The practice had a consent policy in place and staff were aware of how to access it. Staff supported patients to make decisions. Where appropriate, they assessed and recorded a patient’s mental capacity to make a decision. During our checks we found Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were fully documented, made in line with relevant legislation and were appropriate.