Gravesend Medical Centre

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

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.

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.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, well-being 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 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 well-being needs during health reviews. Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and well-being. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a care coordinator. Staff told us following receiving feedback from people, they recognised the benefits a self-check in system could offer to patients, shared this feedback with leadership and it was implemented. Staff told us this system has helped patients by reducing waiting times, allowing a more efficient check in process. Reception staff remained available for patients who prefer not to use the self-check in system.

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.

There were systems in place to follow up with patients requiring monitoring. For example, patients who missed their monitoring test or review appointments or patients who had not responded to the practice’s requests to schedule an appointment.

The practice had strengthened their systems for the management of patients with long term conditions to ensure consistent monitoring.

The practice had a system for receiving, sharing and acting on safety alerts. Staff we spoke with understood how to process these alerts.

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. Leaders held regular meetings with staff to discuss daily processes, share learning and discuss ideas for improvement. Additionally, clinicians participated in frequent multidisciplinary meetings to address safeguarding concerns, discuss palliative care patients and cancer care coordination.

The service supported people to manage their health and well-being 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 supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

There were leaflets in the reception area with information on dementia, grief, mental health, stroke, asthma management and local organisations who could offer healthy living advice.

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

Childhood immunisations were administered according to the national childhood vaccination programme. There were processes in place to support the practice to try and achieve the national target of 90%.

The provider acknowledged the challenges in cervical cancer screening and had systems in place to monitor and encourage patients to attend their screening appointments to increase their 63.3% uptake rate to meet the national target of 80%.

The practice had an effective process in place for identifying and treating cancer cases early through urgent referrals.

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.