• Doctor
  • GP practice

Fosse Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

344 Fosse Road North, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE3 5RR (0116) 295 7100

Provided and run by:
Fosse Medical Centre

Report from 31 December 2024 assessment

On this page

Effective

Good

25 February 2025

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people and took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

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.

Assessing needs

Score: 3

The practice 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 practice was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. 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. 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.

Delivering evidence-based care and treatment

Score: 3

The practice 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. The use of templates supported staff to ensure patients clinical needs were met.

How staff, teams and services work together

Score: 3

The practice 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 practice supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The practice 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. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity. The practice had access to a social prescriber every Friday which they referred to. On inspection we found a vast amount of information in the form of notice boards and leaflets around patient areas, the practice also had QR codes so patients could access information in various languages.

Monitoring and improving outcomes

Score: 3

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

The practice met most national targets for screening and immunisations. The practice were slightly under target for the uptake of cervical screening but had adjusted rotas to allow for better access, introduced QR codes for information in multiple languages, face to face discussions and disclaimers signed and had a robust recall system. From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used the practice experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance.

The practice 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. On inspection we reviewed Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions which were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.