Manston 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 quality statements from this key question and our rating is Good. Overall, we found the practice provided effective care and treatment for patients. A review of patient clinical records found that patients were safely managed by the practice.

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.

As part of the assessment process, we reviewed patient feedback from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test. We did not receive any feedback through our Give Feedback on Care process on the Care Quality Commission’s website. From the patient feedback that we did receive, there were no specific views or concerns regarding this quality statement.

Staff and leaders explained how patients requiring monitoring were supported and managed. This included recall systems for patients requiring annual health reviews and monitoring checks. They told us their recall system included notification by text, email or letter. Staff told us they were trained to recognise signs of deterioration or ‘red flag’ presenting symptoms, including sepsis, to ensure that patients were seen appropriately.

As part of our assessment, a Care Quality Commission GP specialist advisor (SpA) conducted a series of remote clinical searches of patient records to assess the practice’s procedures around the management of patients with long term conditions which included asthma, chronic kidney disease, diabetes and hypothyroidism. Overall, we found good management of these patients, including a system to ensure patients received an annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met.

As part of the assessment process, we reviewed patient feedback from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test. We did not receive any feedback through our Give Feedback on Care process on the Care Quality Commission’s website. From the patient feedback that we did receive, there were no specific views or concerns regarding this quality statement.

Staff told us they kept up to date with current evidence-based guidance through meetings, training opportunities and protected learning time. Staff told us peer reviews were undertaken which gave an opportunity for case-based discussions and a retrospective evaluation of clinical decision-making in patient care. Staff told us they felt supported in the clinical environment.

As part of our assessment, a Care Quality Commission GP specialist advisor conducted a series of remote clinical searches of patient records. We saw evidence from the clinical notes review that staff were managing patients in line with guidance, for example, The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.

As part of the assessment process, we reviewed patient feedback from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test. We did not receive any feedback through our Give Feedback on Care process on the Care Quality Commission’s website. From the patient feedback that we did receive, there were no specific views or concerns regarding this quality statement.

Staff told us they worked closely with different teams and services to ensure patients received care in a coordinated manner. For example, they told us they attend virtual Gold Standards Framework meetings in which the hospice team and district nurses are involved.

Feedback received from NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board indicated that there was no indication of concern in this area.

We saw there were systems and processes in place to ensure care was delivered and reviewed in a coordinated way which included people receiving end-of-life care and those with a learning disability. The practice shared minutes of documented multi-disciplinary team meetings.

As part of the assessment process, we reviewed patient feedback from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test. We did not receive any feedback through our Give Feedback on Care process on the Care Quality Commission’s website. From the patient feedback that we did receive, there were no specific views or concerns regarding this quality statement.

Staff and leaders were committed to promoting and encouraging patients to live heathier lives. We saw that they supported national health priorities, initiatives and screening programmes to improve the population’s health, for example, bowel screening. Staff told us how they encouraged patients to attend health checks and reviews and signposted to support groups and self-help advice.

The practice had nominated leads for palliative care, musculoskeletal health and staff who took special interest in areas such as learning disabilities, baby immunisations and wound care. Within the primary care network, patients could access a social prescriber, which helped them improve their health, wellbeing and social welfare by connecting them to community services. We saw the practice website had links to health and wellbeing information.

As part of the assessment process, we reviewed patient feedback from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test. We did not receive any feedback through our Give Feedback on Care process on the Care Quality Commission’s website. From the patient feedback that we did receive, there were no specific views or concerns regarding this quality statement.

Feedback from staff and leaders was positive about monitoring and improving patient outcomes and told us how they constantly looked at initiatives and interventions to tackle barriers to patient engagement in areas with less attendance, such as baby immunisations.

The practice had registers in place for patients with a learning disability and those with long-term conditions. The practice operated a recall system to ensure patients were offered appropriate health assessments and checks. There was a system to actively follow up patients who failed to attend. Our review of patient clinical records showed the practice worked with patients to monitor and improve outcomes. We saw that the practice had implemented an audit schedule and had a programme of quality improvement, including clinical and non-clinical audits to enable them to deliver better care and treatment.

Validated data available at the time of our assessment for the period to June 2023 for cervical screening showed an uptake of 82.1%. Childhood immunisation uptake for the period to March 2023 for children aged 1, 2 and 5 years old ranged from 94.7% to 96.8%. Feedback from NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board (ICB) showed that the practice had continued to improve good outcomes for patients, which benchmarked well against national and ICB’s averages and targets.

As part of the assessment process, we reviewed patient feedback from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test. We did not receive any feedback through our Give Feedback on Care process on the Care Quality Commission’s website. From the patient feedback that we did receive, there were no specific views or concerns regarding this quality statement.

Staff and leaders had knowledge around consent to care and treatment, including the assessment of a person’s mental capacity to make a decision. When needed, clinicians supported patients and involved their families, carers and other professionals to make decisions in the person’s best interests, including decisions about Do Not Attempt Cardio- Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR). Clinical staff told us they had undertaken mental capacity act and deprivation of liberty safeguards training.

There were appropriate consent policies and procedures in place. Staff and leaders told us that the practice had support from an advanced nurse practitioner within the primary care network who supported patients by calling, doing home visits to more vulnerable patients and, where appropriate, completed Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) care plans to record patient wishes regarding care and resuscitation. We reviewed some patient records and saw evidence of the patient and their relatives being involved in end-of-life care discussions.