Linden Medical Group

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 did not assess all quality statements for this key question as part of this inspectio; therefore some information and scoring is being pulled from the previous inspection. As a result, the previous outstanding rating has not changed.

Patients’ needs were assessed, and care and treatment was delivered in line with current legislation, standards and evidence-based guidance supported by clear pathways and tools. Staff treated patients with kindness, respect and compassion. Feedback from patients was positive about the way staff treated people. Clinical and non-clinical staff carried out audits as a way of monitoring the effectiveness of treatment and ensure patients were receiving the right care and treatment. Audit cycles viewed demonstrated where changes made had resulted in improvements. Feedback from clinical staff and leaders were positive about the daily clinical meetings where patients care was discussed, staff felt they received support, and all staff learned from these meetings.

This service scored 96 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The feedback we received from the practice patient participation group (PPG) was positive regarding assessment and meeting peoples needs. PPG also explained the practice had recruited additional GPs which resulted in a reduction in waiting times. The 2024 national GP patient survey showed 80% of patients felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment; this was below the local and national average. The practice was aware of this, and clinical audits showed improved outcomes in patients needs.

Leaders and staff told us the practice would use a series of codes and alerts on the patient record to highlight people’s communication needs and any impairments. The practice had systems and processes in place to identify people’s needs and preferences during the registration process.

Staff told us they checked people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs during health reviews. Staff explained patients had benefited from the development and implementation of champions in various areas such as Learning Disabilities, transgender, army veterans and carers champion.

Champions also drove the agenda to close health inequalities by increasing the uptake of health checks using social prescribers for patient population from Black and Minority Ethnic Groups. Staff explained this was in response to the diversity in the practice local catchment area which evolved over the last 12 months.

A remote review of the patient record system showed that patients mainly received appropriate long-term condition reviews. Patients with long-term conditions were offered an effective annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met. During our on-site inspection, we found that where remote clinical searches had identified patients who had not received long-term condition reviews as well as missed diagnosis; actions had been taken to follow up identified patients. For patients with the most complex needs, the GPs worked with other health and care professionals to deliver a coordinated package of care. Registers were kept of patients with different health requirements.

The practice identified patients with caring responsibilities and had signposting and policies in place to support their needs. This information was available through new patient registration, notice boards and leaflets.

The practice had a dedicated direct line where the most vulnerable patients would speak with the practice care coordinating team. Staff explained the team provided advise and signposted patients to wrap around services.

Staff we spoke with were aware of the practice uptake of cervical screening for persons eligible for the screening between the ages of 25 to 64 which was below the 80% target. Actions taken to improve uptake included opportunistic screening; persons eligible had access to Saturday appointments and during our on-site inspection we observed promotional boards in the patient waiting area.

Staff were aware of the uptake of children aged five who have received immunisation for measles, mumps and rubella which was slightly below the World Health Organisation (WHO) minimum target. Actions were ongoing to improve uptake which included supporting and encouraging parents and legal guardians to attend clinics with their child. Patients who decline vaccinations or their child were provided with information outlining the importance of immunisations.

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.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.