The Blackmore Vale Partnership

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 and inspected against three quality statements, assessing needs; delivering evidence-based care and treatment; How staff, teams and services work together. During our assessment of this key question, we found staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this. People with long-term conditions received effective care and treatment in line with national guidelines. Our review of clinical searches of patient records showed that care and treatment plans were being managed effectively. The practice monitored uptake of childhood vaccinations, we identified that the practice was in line with local and national averages. We found that although cervical screening uptake was lower than averages, actions had been taken to improve uptake which included; extended access Saturday clinics and developing patient education literature and initiatives. We also found that Do Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) records had been completed in line with national guidance and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

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.

As part of the assessment process, we asked the practice to invite patients to share their experience of the service. From the feedback we received we saw no indication of concern in this area.

Staff told us there were enough staff to ensure administrative tasks were completed and prevent working excessive hours. During our remote searches we identified that patient correspondence in relation to diagnostic and pathology results had been kept up to date. The practice had monitored performance to medical coding and staff demonstrated summarisation of patient records had remained accurate and up to date to inform effective care. Staff were able to describe their roles and responsibilities to manage risks associated with workflow and patient correspondence. Staff told us urgent tasks were raised to GPs based on information escalated by Out of Hours and 111 services, in particular, for patients who were required to be seen in-hours by the practice based on their symptoms and clinical presentation.

There were systems for sharing information with staff and other agencies to enable them to deliver safe care and treatment. We identified processes to monitor delays in referrals and the practice carried out audits to ensure ‘two week wait’ (2WW) cancer referrals had been booked with secondary care providers as a safety netting mechanism. 2WW cancer referrals are urgent referrals used to investigate symptoms to detect cancer. We reviewed the practice arrangements for evaluating abnormal results and these were prioritised to ensure patients were followed-up in a timely way. For example, we observed the practice’s pathology clinical system mailbox and identified abnormal results were assigned to the duty GP for review on the day and correspondence was picked up to prevent delays to care and treatment. People were involved in regularly monitoring their health, including health assessments and checks where appropriate and necessary with health and care professionals. We saw examples of healthcare initiatives to support the practice population including mental health projects and community wellbeing sessions. The practice had met the accessible information standard to ensure all people, including those with communication needs could receive effective care and treatment. The practice was able to demonstrate reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. The premises had a portable hearing loop in place for patients with hard of hearing. Accessible communication formats such as large print materials and information in braille was available when required. During our assessment, we observed the translation service system which was able to efficiently assist service users and staff.

As part of the assessment process, we asked the practice to invite patients to share their experience of the service. From the feedback we received we saw no indication of concern in this area.

Staff told us they were able to raise concerns and there were opportunities to review their performance with leaders and mentors. We saw examples of audits of staff competency checks including non-medical prescribing data which was used to review performance at appraisals and clinical supervision meetings. Staff gave examples of external training courses that were offered by the practice as part of continuous professional development (CPD) to upskill staff to provide more effective care and treatment for patients. Leaders demonstrated clinical supervision for staff which included weekly teaching sessions and recommendations led by GPs to ensure advanced clinical practitioners and nurses provided safe care and treatment.

The practice had an induction programme for clinical and non-clinical staff which included information for training, appraisal and health and safety. The practice could demonstrate the prescribing competency of non-medical prescribers and there was a regular review of their prescribing practice supported by trust led prescribing medicine audits. During our remote clinical searches, we found people with long-term conditions received regular management plans and reviews including routine appointments to discuss care and treatment were in place to ensure safe and effective care. Staff were trained and had guidance to review and ensure specific care plans were identified for people to ensure their resuscitation and emergency treatment wishes were known. The provider had access to annual training for staff in relation to mental capacity act and learning disabilities and consent.

As part of the assessment process, we asked the practice to invite patients to share their experience of the service. From the feedback we received we saw no indication of concern in this area.

Staff and leaders told us about services they worked closely with teams and healthcare services. This included a variety of local organisations, including those in the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector. Staff told us that they had access to the information they need to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support. In particular, people transitioning between services. Staff told us they had enough information to plan and refer people and receive subsequent results and information people following referral. Leaders told us that practice communication such as service updates and pathways with local care providers were shared with staff. The practice had demonstrated that views from staff and people were listened to and acted upon, such as actions taken in response to feedback from people. For example, feedback from people who used the service stated that relevant staff and teams were involved in planning and delivering people’s care and treatment. Staff told us they worked collaboratively to understand people’s needs and there were regular staff meetings to demonstrate any changes to systems and processes. Leaders were able to show us examples of actions taken in response to surveys about preferences for accessing care, continuity and how this was managed between staff. People received bespoke responses to feedback with an opportunity to discuss with senior leaders.

As part of the assessment process, we sought feedback from a wide range of external stakeholders such as local healthcare providers and community teams. We found the practice had proactively worked with other services to streamline patient pathways for patients and co-ordinated care to ensure care and treatment was both safe and effective. Providers told us there were ways to share information to meet people’s needs, including for out of hours and extended access services. For example, the practice worked within the primary care network (PCN) to determine service arrangements based on demographics and other public health data parameters. We spoke with the NHS Dorset Integrated Care Board ahead of this assessment. From the feedback we received, there was no indication of concern in this area.

The practice had implemented a patient coding system that was linked to smaller groups of staff teams that comprised of various staffing types depending on people’s care needs and co-morbidities. This demonstrated a streamlined continuity of care and was initiated a result of patient feedback. As a result, people experienced co-ordinated care through smaller practice teams that could accommodate more person-centred care approach such as reasonable adjustments for longer appointments and assigned a ‘named GP’. Audits had been carried out routinely to ensure patients were coded appropriately and kept up to date. This had a positive impact on providing safe and effective care and treatment based on mitigating incidents and improving patient satisfaction. Staff rotas had been completed with oversight of cover where required, so that if a clinician was absent at short notice, pre-booked appointments could be put into protected available same day slots with another clinician. There were effective staffing arrangements to ensure in the event of emergency, the risk of unsafe practice was mitigated to prevent lone working.

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.