• Doctor
  • GP practice

Bridgemary Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The Bridgemary Medical Centre, 2 Gregson Avenue, Bridgemary, Gosport, Hampshire, PO13 0HR (01329) 232446

Provided and run by:
Bridgemary Medical Centre

Report from 11 November 2024 assessment

On this page

Effective

Good

20 March 2025

We looked for evidence that 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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Assessing needs

Score: 3

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Feedback from people using the service was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident staff understood their individual and cultural needs. Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present. Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber via the primary care network.

Delivering evidence-based care and treatment

Score: 2

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance. However, we found there was scope to improve the processes in place for patients prescribed medicines that require monitoring.

How staff, teams and services work together

Score: 3

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. The practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

Supporting people to live healthier lives

Score: 3

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to patients’ health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, patients at risk of developing a long-term condition and those with caring responsibilities. The practice had recently introduced a GP assistant to increase their capacity to support these patients. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

Monitoring and improving outcomes

Score: 3

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The practice had a recall system in place to ensure patients were contacted to attend cervical screening appointments. This had led to an improvement in the percentage of women attending these appointments. The practice was below national targets for childhood immunisations, and took actions to improve this. For example, an administration lead proactively followed up appointments that had been missed.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.