Camphill Health 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

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.

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.

The feedback we received from patients was limited regarding assessment of needs. However, the information we did receive was positive regarding patient’s needs being met.

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 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.

A remote review of the patient record system showed that patients 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. 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.

We could not collect specific evidence from patient feedback to score this evidence category. Our observations raised no concerns. The evidence we reviewed did not show any concerns about people’s experience regarding delivering evidence-based care and treatment.

Feedback from leaders showed they worked to ensure all clinical correspondence and tasks were up to date. Patients had access to appropriate health checks and assessments and were directed to relevant services when they needed extra support, such as those at risk of developing a long-term condition. Patients were encouraged to be involved in monitoring and managing their own health and were referred to additional services if needed.

We undertook a series of searches on the practice’s clinical records system to review if care and treatment was delivered in line with best practice. Our searches demonstrated, systems worked effectively to support safe and effective care for patients prescribed high-risk medicine or medicines that required regular monitoring. Our searches did identify 9 patients who were overdue reviews. However, these patients had been contacted by the practice and appropriate measures were in place, including targeted clinical discussions and risk assessment to ensure these patients were supported. Within 24 hours of our assessment, the practice was able to contact all of these patients and arrange appointments or complete blood tests according to best practice guidance.

Patients we spoke with and feedback we reviewed demonstrated patients were positive about their experiences of being referred to other services.

Staff and leaders were confident in sharing how they worked together and with other services to support patients. They said they had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver patient’s care, treatment and support.

Feedback from partners was positive in relation to how the practice worked collectively with them to support vulnerable patients, for example those on the safeguarding register and those residing in a local care home.

Evidence demonstrated there were effective systems to share information between teams and services to ensure continuity of care, such as when clinical tasks were delegated or when people were referred between services. Multidisciplinary teams met regularly to discuss and support vulnerable patients. These meetings were documented to ensure actions were completed as required.

We could not collect specific evidence from patient feedback to score this evidence category. Our observations raised no concerns. The evidence we reviewed did not show any concerns about people’s experience regarding the practice supporting people to live healthier lives.

Staff and leaders told us they included and encouraged patients to take an active approach in reviewing their own health and wellbeing. This included identifying risks to patient’s health and wellbeing early on to support them and prevent deterioration. Patients who required social support could be signposted to the social prescriber. At the time of our assessment there was no social prescriber in situ but the practice’s Primary Care Network (PCN) was in the process of recruiting a replacement.

The practice had embedded recall systems to support patients to manage their health. During our clinical searches we found effective medicine reviews and detailed medical records showing us how patients had been supported. The practice staff were knowledgeable within their roles and referred to specialist services when appropriate.

We could not collect specific evidence from patient feedback to score this evidence category. Our observations raised no concerns. The evidence we reviewed did not show any concerns about people’s experience regarding monitoring and improving outcomes.

Staff and leaders demonstrated effective systems and processes to monitor and improve outcomes. Staff told us of incidents and complaints which had led to improvements from shared learning. Documentation was informative and all staff had access to meeting minutes.

We found robust processes including those for complaints, incidents reporting and supervision. We found documented evidence of shared learning throughout these systems which improved outcomes for patients. Although the practice was able to provide some examples of clinical audits, we found these were not repeat cycle, so evidence of improvement was limited.

During our clinical searches we found patient’s treatment and care was monitored to ensure they received effective care. There was an evidence-based approach and appropriate documentation recorded when patients were reviewed by the practice.

We could not collect specific evidence from patient feedback to score this evidence category. Our observations raised no concerns. The evidence we reviewed did not show any concerns about people’s experience in relation to consent to care and treatment.

Clinicians understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making. Clinicians supported patients to make decisions ensuring their views and wishes were taken into account during care planning. Assessments of mental capacity were carried out when needed and were decision specific. Staff told us they were able to adapt information about care and treatment in a way the patient would understand to support them making informed decisions.

We saw that consent was documented. Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were made in line with relevant legislation and were appropriate.