Manchester Road East Medical Practice

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 all the quality statements in this key question. Our rating for this key question has improved from requires improvement to good. At this inspection we found improved systems to keep up to date with current evidence-based practices and to manage test results. There was clear evidence of clinicians’ training and supervision. During this assessment we found that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them with advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed the care being provided and worked with other services to achieve good outcomes.

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.

Feedback from people was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. 83% of people who responded to the most recent GP patient survey described their experience of contacting their GP practice as good.

Staff and leaders were aware of the needs of the local community. Staff told us how they checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Leaders told us that practice staff shared clear and accurate information with relevant professionals when deciding care delivery for patients. The provider demonstrated they used registers for people with learning disabilities, mental health conditions, long term conditions, palliative care, carers and safeguarding to ensure that needs were assessed and managed appropriately. We found no concerns with how those patients’ care wellbeing was assessed.

The practice had systems and processes to keep clinicians up to date with current evidence-based practice. We found that patients’ immediate and ongoing needs were fully assessed and these included interventions required to ensure effective care was delivered. The practice carried out structured annual medicines reviews for patients with long-term health conditions. There was a programme of clinical and non-clinical audits that were used to monitor quality and make improvement when actions were identified. The practice worked closely with the PCN to improve health inequalities.

There was no specific feedback from people about the delivery of evidence based care and treatment. However, 60% of people who responded to the most recent GP patient survey said they have had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses and 73% said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at considering their mental wellbeing during their last general practice appointment.

Staff and leaders were encouraged to learn about new and innovative approaches that evidence shows can improve the way their service delivers care. Staff demonstrated how clinical meetings were used to ensure evidence based care was followed. There were also informal weekly clinical meetings where patients were discussed with peers to ensure best practice was being followed. The clinical searches also demonstrated best practice was being followed when reviewing the management of patients with long term conditions.

The provider had systems to ensure staff were up to date with national legislation, evidence-based good practice and required standards. For example, the provider had a standing agenda item on the monthly meeting for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) updates. Within the clinical system staff followed templates to ensure care was delivered in the most up to date and consistent way.

60% of people who responded to the most recent GP patient survey said they had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses.

Staff felt their ideas about how to improve the service were listened to. Staff told us they were kept up to date through practice meetings, minutes of these meetings were shared for staff who could not attend.

The Local Medical Council (LMC) and the Integrated Care Board (ICB) were positive about the way in which the practice involved themselves with partner organisations. They attended meetings and provided input. They ensured care was delivered and reviewed in a coordinated way when different teams, services and organisations.

The provider had processes in place, so information was shared between teams and services to ensure continuity of care. The provider had regular meetings to ensure all staff, teams and services worked well together. Partnership meetings were held monthly and practice and clinical meetings were held weekly. The meetings had standardised agendas which included learning from complaints and incidents, vulnerable patients, best practice and new guidance updates and practice news and updates.

There was no specific feedback from people regarding this.

The lead GP discussed local initiatives and what was available to patients to support them to live healthier lives. The practice had NHS health checks undertaken by nurses and assisted roles provided by the PCN to help. We saw evidence to support this during the remote clinical searches where there were no concerns. The practice was also involved in all national screening services which although slightly low were in line with others in the area. Staff showed us their own unverified data which was higher and within 80% of the required target. It was evident from discussions with staff that they understood the requirements of their patient population.

Clinical staff used templates and had protocols to follow when when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber. Patients were supported to manage their health and wellbeing and where possible reduce their need for future care and treatment. They were told when they needed to seek further help and what to do if their condition deteriorated.

We saw that people were able to get results to tests in a way that suited them as soon as they were available. Results from the GP patient survey demonstrated that people felt their health was monitored appropriately and explained to them. 89% of people who responded to the most recent GP patient survey felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment and 96% felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment.

We observed the way reception staff dealt with people whilst on site. They were all passionate about their roles and understood the needs of the people they dealt with. Work had been undertaken to improve the care navigation role so that people received the right treatment by the right person at the right time. Clinical audits were undertaken to improve outcomes for people and to ensure learning took place. The practice demonstrated through feedback that patients were positive about their experiences. (June and July 2024).

As part of the inspection a number of set clinical record searches were undertaken by a CQC GP specialist advisor remotely. The results from the searches demonstrated there were effective processes in place to monitor people’s care and treatment. This meant that continuous improvements were made to people’s care and treatment.

We saw from clinical audits undertaken by the practice that outcomes were improved for patients and we continually monitored. Specifically we saw audits to ensure cost effective prescribing, assurance that patients received regular blood monitoring to avoid adverse effects such as bone marrow suppression and liver cirrhosis and assurance that minor operations and high risk drugs were being managed appropriately.

People received information about care and treatment in a way they could understand and have appropriate support and time to make decisions.

Staff understood the importance of ensuring that people fully understand what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before they delivered care or treatment. We discussed mental capacity awareness training for non-clinical staff which had not been completed and the provider said this would be added to the mandatory training for all staff. During the clinical searches we pointed out to the lead GP the importance of documenting when Power of Attorney had been agreed whilst a person maintained capacity.

There were systems and practices to ensure people understood the care and treatment being offered or recommended. This helped them make an informed decision.