- GP practice
Bevan Group Practice
Report from 6 November 2024 assessment
Contents
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
Effective
Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. We assessed all the quality statements in this key question and have rated the service as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. However, our review of patients that may who had a potential missed diagnosis of diabetes showed some patients had not been followed up appropriately. An action plan was submitted by the provider immediately following the assessment.
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.
Assessing needs
Feedback from people that used the service was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. The results of the national GP patient survey showed that positive results were received from people who used the service. For example, patients felt that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. Patients also gave positive responses indicating that during their last appointment, they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to. Our review of clinical records demonstrated that people’s care and treatment was regularly reviewed and updated. Records demonstrated people were involved in the assessment of their needs, and where needed, were supported to maximise their involvement. Records reviewed demonstrated appropriate care planning. For example, for people with a long-term condition, mental health condition, a learning disability or those receiving palliative care. People who were at risk of developing a long-term condition were identified and monitored.
Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
There were systems to ensure staff were up to date with relevant legislation, evidence-based practice and required standards. Our review of clinical records showed that people received care, treatment and support that was evidenced based and was in line with good practice standards. Overall, appropriate monitoring and reviews were in place for people with long term conditions, in line with national guidance. For example: people with, diabetes, hypothyroidism, asthma and chronic kidney disease. However, there were some shortfalls. We noted that two patients with hypothyroidism had not been monitored effectively. We looked at five patient records for patients who had a potential missed diagnosis of diabetes, out of a potential 21 patients. A delayed diagnosis can cause diabetes-related complications, meaning these patients were at risk of harm. We found that four patients had not been followed up effectively. Issues related included patients not having their conditions appropriately diagnosed or coded and therefore potentially had missed out on monitoring, treatment, screening and follow up. Following assessment, the service submitted an action plan to demonstrate appropriate actions was taken in response to the results.
How staff, teams and services work together
Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support. When people moved between services, all necessary staff, teams and services were involved in assessing their needs to maintain continuity of care. Information was shared between teams and services to ensure continuity of care, including when people were referred between services or when clinical tasks were delegated.
Supporting people to live healthier lives
People were supported to manage their own health, care and wellbeing needs, and make healthier choices. Staff focused on identifying risks to people’s health and wellbeing, for example, people in the last 12 months of their lives and people at risk of developing a long-term condition. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve the population’s health, including stop smoking and tackling obesity campaigns. Patients were encouraged to attend cancer screening and take up vaccinations offered as part of national programmes.
Monitoring and improving outcomes
The provider had effective approaches to monitoring people’s care and treatment, and their outcomes. Clinical and non-clinical audits were carried out to improve outcomes for patients. Patients who required monitoring underwent regular checks on their health. The service was in line with other services within the locality and nationally for outcomes for patients. The service was just below target for the percentage of persons eligible for cervical cancer screening who were screened adequately within 3.5 years for persons aged 25 to 49, and within 5.5 years for persons aged 50 to 64. The service told us they were working to increase uptake of cervical screening across the relevant patient population. Patients were being contacted proactively to encourage them to attend and specific cervical screening clinics were being scheduled. Regular searches of patient’s medicines were undertaken by the service pharmacists to monitor patients. Depending on the results this included providing extra help to manage long-term conditions, advice for those on multiple medicines and better access to health checks.
Consent to care and treatment
Staff understood the importance of ensuring that people fully understood what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before they delivered care or treatment. People received information about care and treatment in a way they could understand and had appropriate support and time to make decisions. There was a system in place to record people’s consent appropriately. People’s capacity and ability to consent was considered. People, or persons lawfully acting on their behalf were involved in planning, managing and reviewing their care and treatment. Our review of clinical records showed that do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.