Wolverley Surgery

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 total of 6 quality statements from this key question. We found patients were regularly assessed, and care and treatment were delivered in line with current legislation and evidence-based guidelines. We found staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support.

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.

Patients felt involved in the assessment of their needs and confident that staff understood their individual needs.

Staff and leaders were aware of the needs of their local population. Reception staff used digital flags within the care record system to highlight any specific individual need. For example, some patients required longer appointments.

A CQC GP Specialist Advisor (GP SpA) accessed the practice’s systems remotely to undertake a series of searches on the practice’s clinical records system. A sample of the records of patients with long term health conditions were checked to ensure required monitoring was taking place in accordance with national guidelines. One of the searches looked at patients diagnosed with diabetes who had a blood glucose level of 75mmol or above, from which we identified 31 patients within our search category. We reviewed 5 patient records and found all had the correct monitoring. We also reviewed 5 out of 41 patients who had received 2 or more courses of rescue steroids to treat an exacerbation of their asthma and found no concerns.

Patients received care, treatment and support that was evidence-based and in line with good practice standards.

The practice had systems and processes to keep clinicians up to date with national legislation, evidence-based good practice and required standards. Staff told us they had enough time to complete any continuous professional development.

The practice had regular clinical meetings where guidance and cases were discussed. We saw evidence of clinical audits being undertaken to ensure they were meeting clinical guidelines.

People told us they felt their care and support was co-ordinated and services worked well together.

Staff we spoke with described the positive working relationships they had formed to ensure people’s care, treatment and support was delivered effectively.

We did not receive any concerns from commissioners or other system partners about how staff, teams and services worked together at this practice.

Staff had access to the information they needed to assess, plan and deliver patients care and treatment. There were effective systems for sharing information with staff and other health and social care professionals such as district nurses and frailty team. This included regular multidisciplinary meetings.

Patients were encouraged to live healthier lives. For example, one patient told us the practice were supportive when giving advice about making improvements following their annual diabetic review.

Staff we spoke with told us how they empowered and supported people to manage their own health, care and wellbeing. They told us how they identified people who may need extra support and were able to refer patients to social prescribing teams. Social prescribers work with other professionals to connect people to a variety of services to meet their social, emotional and practical needs. This helped patients to improve their health and wellbeing.

We observed there was posters and leaflets throughout the practice waiting area advising patients on health and wellbeing topics such as diabetes and mental health support. There was also information available on the practice’ website, for example about stopping smoking, contraception and child immunisations.

We did not receive feedback from people about monitoring and improving outcomes. However, the practice shared with us examples of how they routinely monitored patient’s feedback to improve care.

Staff and leaders demonstrated effective systems and processes to monitor and improve outcomes. Staff provided examples of incidents that had led to improvements and how these were shared in team meetings.

The practice regularly carried out clinical audits to improve outcomes for patients. Leaders held clinical and team meetings to discuss and share learnings and outcomes from the audits.

During our clinical searches we found patients treatment and care was monitored to ensure they received effective care.

We did not receive any concerns from patients regarding consent to care and treatment. Our observations and evidence raised no concerns.

Staff and leaders understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making. We saw consent was documented, and staff supported patients to make decisions.

The practice had an appropriate chaperone policy in place and patients were offered a chaperone. Chaperone posters were on display at the practice. Staff who carried out chaperone duties were trained for the role and had received a disclosure and barring (DBS) check.