Head Office

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. Our rating for this key question is good. We found the provider assessed the needs of patients in line with local and national guidance. We found patient records to be complete and accurate. Audits were used to monitor care and make improvements to the service.

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’ needs were addressed. The service carried out surveys to review the quality of care provided. Although the service did not question patients directly about the full assessment of their condition, patient feedback was generally positive about the service.

Leaders detailed clear processes in how they ensured that patients needs were addressed, and how they reviewed this. Staff were able to identify specific leads who could be contacted if advice on the assessment of patients were required.

The service utilised local and national guidance to determine how patient needs should be addressed. We undertook a review of patient records at the service, and found that these guidelines were being followed in those records. Patients’ immediate and ongoing needs were fully assessed.

We found no concerns regarding people’s experience of receiving evidence based care and treatment.

Staff told us they received regular updates from leaders at the service. Where there were changes to best practice, detailed effective systems of how this was shared with staff, and also how records were reviewed, particularly where notifications had been received.

Clinical staff had access to relevant national and local guidelines and used this information to help ensure that people's needs were met. The provider monitored that these guidelines were followed. Care and treatment was delivered in a coordinated way which took into account the needs of those whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. Patients’ needs were fully assessed in all of the records that we reviewed.

Staff, teams and services worked together to provide care. Where appropriate, the provider worked with other services to ensure patients’ needs were met.

Staff were aware of the need to complete accurate and full records, such that information did not need to be repeated by patients. Patients received coordinated and person-centred care. This included providing accurate records for the practice at which the patient was based, and when they were referred. Care and treatment for patients in vulnerable circumstances was coordinated with other services. There were established pathways for staff to follow to ensure patients’ needs were met.

The provider had processes to share information with relevant partner organisations. The provider worked collaboratively with external stakeholders.

The service ensured that care was delivered in a coordinated way and took into account the needs of different patients, including those who may be vulnerable because of their circumstances. There were clear and effective arrangements for booking appointments, and transfers to other services.

We found no concerns regarding people’s experience of supporting people to live healthier lives.

The patients at the service were attending for a single appointment only. However, staff at the service were aware of how to ensure that the home GP practice was aware of how to support individual requirements.

The service had processes whereby patients could be signposted to support services in the Bexley area.

The provider had completed audits to ensure care was positive and consistent. There was an audit programme for the year, this included reviews of clinical notes, medicines management checks and infection prevention and control audits.

As the service was primarily a single point of access service for patients who were on the list of other GP practices, the service did not review outcomes for patients with long term conditions. However, both leaders and staff told us that the audits that the service was able to complete were discussed at staff meetings.

There were processes to ensure information was shared and discussed with staff during meetings. This included outcomes and learning from audits.

We found no concerns regarding people’s experience of consent to care and treatment.

Clinicians understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making. We saw that consent was documented where required.

Relevant staff had been provided with training in the Mental Capacity Act. The provider monitored the process for seeking consent appropriately.