Kingskerswell and Ipplepen Medical Practice Also known as Dr D'Arcy & Partners

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 a limited number of quality statements in the effective key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was outstanding. Though the assessment of these areas indicated areas of good practice since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains outstanding.

This service scored 88 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Feedback from people using the service was positive. People felt involved in assessments of their needs and felt they were treated with dignity and respect. Respondents to the national GP patient survey indicated higher satisfaction than the national averages for being involved in decisions about care and treatment. 76% said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at considering their mental wellbeing during their last general practice appointment 96% felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment 95% were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment 95% felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment

The staff were aware of the needs of their patients and made reasonable adjustments to enable patients to make appointments who may not have access to technology, or did not have anyone to assist them to complete the online Klinik form.. Any specific individual needs were added to patient records, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present.

Clinical staff used recognised electronic templates when assessing people’s health care needs. The practice had effective systems to identify when people needed to be referred to other services for care and treatment. In addition to this, the practice employed a paramedic who provided support to care homes and families who were receiving palliative care.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People were provided with care and treatment from an appropriate clinician. For example, from a GP, the nursing team or a paramedic. The national GP survey showed 97% of respondents had confidence and trust in the health care professional seen at their last appointment. This exceeded the England average of 93%.

Staff worked well together and liaised and communicated with external professionals. Systems and processes had been developed to share information to promote the coordination of care and treatment.

We have received no specific feedback in this area.

Patients received consistent, coordinated, person centred care when they moved between services. Information relating to individual patients from external health providers was uploaded to their clinical records in a timely way. On the day of inspection there were 74 clinic letters to process which included the days daily download of letters from secondary care providers. The records awaiting processing had arrived in the practice over the previous week and it was anticipated all information would be dealt with by the end of the day. Additional staff had been recruited to manage the volume of communications that arrived at the practice each day. Staff were able to help each other with their roles and a planned programme of shadowing and training was underway to ensure that staff absences would not lead to information not being processed. Information was shared by email and newsletters to keep staff up to date with any changes.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

There was no specific feedback for this area.

Patients were reviewed or monitored at appropriate intervals to ensure their health outcomes where positive. Staff identified opportunities to refer patients to social prescribers' to improve their quality of life. GPs' followed up patients who had received treatment in hospital and acted on information received in discharge summaries.

The provider followed a process to encourage people invited for cervical screening to attend for appointments. Nursing staff were provided with support and additional training to enable them to carry out this procedure. The system alerted staff to specific care and support needs people had. For example, substance misuse. Staff had access to specialist support through the primary care network and external organisations when needed. People experiencing mental health issues were invited for an annual review but were able to request support from a clinician when needed. Patients living with long term conditions were monitored and recalled by their birthday month for review. Staff completed a personalised care plan for each patient provided opportunities for them to discuss their care and treatment at their annual review.

Data reviewed prior to the inspection showed completed cervical screening for eligible women had not met the national target (at 79.4% against the national target of 80%). However, data provided by the practice, which had been submitted but was unverified, demonstrated the target had since been met. The practice had met the World Health Organisation targets for administering baby and child immunisations. Children who were not brought to appointments were followed up with contact made with their parent or carers.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.