Manor and Park Group 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

Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs. Patients’ needs were assessed and regularly monitored although the attainment for the management of childhood immunisation and cervical cytology screening was below local and national averages. We observed from the clinical searches we carried out that the service delivered evidence-based care. However, recording of risk advice and some monitoring processes required review. They monitored and improved outcomes for patients by carrying out clinical audits. Although we did not see any 2 cycled clinical audits, the provider had a plan to address this. Staff, teams and services worked in a positive way to improve patient outcomes and worked with other care providers so support patients whose circumstances may make them vulnerable and also within their primary care network. Patients needs were assessed and staff would actively refer patients to social prescribing for support with their wellbeing and social issues and patients with communication needs were supported. Patient consent was sought appropriately.

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 practice had a system in place to identify people with caring responsibilities. The practice had a system in place to ensure people’s assessments were up-to-date and staff understood people’s current needs. People’s care needs were routinely reviewed. People with long term conditions were invited for an annual health check. The provider looked after a care home. All patients had a care plan in place and the GP would complete a weekly ward round.

People told us that they felt involved in decisions about their care, that they were able to ask questions during their consultation and that they received an explanation in a way that they could understand.

Leaders and staff told us staff would put an alert on the patient record to highlight people’s communication needs and any impairments . They had access to interpreter services and administration staff we spoke with told us that they would support patients with communication needs, for example, they had some patients who communicated through text messaging as they were unable to communicate at the desk. The practice had systems and processes in place to identify people’s needs and preferences during the registration process. Staff actively referred patients to social prescribing to support with their wellbeing and social issues.

GPs told us they worked to current NICE guidance and local clinical protocols. However, attainment for the management of childhood immunisation and cervical cytology screening was below local and national averages. Childhood immunisation data did not meet the national WHO (world health organisation) target of 90% and they were achieving 62% for cervical cancer screening. This is below the national target of 80%.

People told us that they were happy with the care and treatment that they received.

We observed from the clinical searches we carried out that the service delivered evidence-based care though some recording of risk advice and monitoring processes required review. For example, follow up of patients with asthma prescribed emergency steroids. Patients with long term conditions were offered an annual review. The practice monitored and improved outcomes for patients by carrying out clinical audits. Although we did not see any completed 2 cycled clinical audits to confirm actions taken from the first cycle had been sustained. The provider had a plan to address this.

People we spoke with told us that they were happy with the care and treatment they received and that they had been referred by the practice to secondary care when required.

Staff attended regular multi-disciplinary team meetings to discuss patients whose circumstances may make them vulnerable, for example patients receiving end of life care. External partners such as district nurses were invited to attend.

The practice was part of a primary care network (PCN) of practices who shared staff for the benefit of patients. For example, they had employed a mental health worker who held clinics at the practice.

The provider had a GDPR (general data protection regulation) policy in place and safe processes for information sharing. Referral letters were completed in a timely manner and there was a procedure for staff to follow to action incoming letters and discharge summaries.

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.

People told us they were happy with their care and treatment and those who had a long-term condition told us they were invited in for an annual health check.

Clinical searches were mostly positive and showed good care and appropriate monitoring of patients with long term conditions and those on high risk medicines. There was a structured system in place for inviting patients in for their long-term condition annual reviews and there were designated administration staff who had oversight of this. We saw the practice had a system for reviewing patients test results in a timely manner. We observed there were no test results older than 1 day on the clinical system awaiting review. We observed referral letters to be actioned in a timely manner. The provider monitored and improved outcomes for patients by carrying out clinical audits, although we did not see any 2 cycled clinical audits.

Staff carrying out long-term condition reviews had received appropriate training for the role.

We did not receive any concerns from patients relating to consent to care and treatment.

Staff had a good understanding of consent and had received appropriate safeguarding training including mental capacity act and deprivation of liberties training. The practice did not carry out any minor surgical procedures that required written consent.

Patients were offered a chaperone when carrying out examinations, we saw posters displayed in the practice informing patients of this. Staff who carried out chaperone duties were trained for the role and had received a disclosure and barring (DBS) check.