Brewood 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

In general people’s immediate and ongoing needs were assessed. However, there were some gaps found during our clinical searches which were fed back to the practice for action. People were involved in the assessment of their needs, and care and treatment were delivered in line with current legislation and evidence-based guidance.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The evidence we reviewed did not show any concerns about people’s experience regarding assessing needs. The practice took account of patient’s communication needs and staff demonstrated an awareness of their responsibilities in meeting the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. The practice had made changes to their website to improve patient experiences. We received positive feedback from a care home representative regarding regular engagement in respect of assessing people’s needs.

Staff and leaders told us they used codes and alerts on patients records to highlight any communication needs and any impairments. They reported there were appropriate referral pathways to make sure that patients’ needs were addressed. Staff told us they had the appropriate skills and training to carry out reviews where appropriate.

The practice had systems and processes in place to ensure patients’ immediate and ongoing communication needs were fully assessed. We saw no evidence of discrimination when staff made care and treatment decisions. Double appointments were available to ensure that patients with accessible information communication needs were met. Staff had completed training to support autistic people and people with a learning disability. At the main site and Wheaton Aston site there was an induction hearing loop to assist patients with a hearing loss. Patients could receive communication support in the format they needed. There was a process for a person centred approach in respect of the do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation in place.

The evidence we reviewed did not show any concerns about people’s experience regarding delivering evidence-based care and treatment.

Our clinical searches found the practice was mainly assessing and delivering care and treatment in line with the current legislation, standards, and evidence-based guidance. Patients with long-term conditions were offered an annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met. Clinical searches were completed by a CQC GP Specialist Advisor, and we provided feedback to the practice on the areas requiring improvement action. We found for example, some patients were overdue their asthma review and improvement was needed in the management of interval blood test monitoring for patients on medicines requiring regular monitoring, including those with the potential for a diabetes diagnosis. In the records we reviewed we found clinical staff were inconsistent in downloading laboratory results to patient records. There was a cervical screening uptake programme in place and patients were encouraged and recalled attending these screening opportunities. However the uptake of screening was lower than the target of 80%. Regular meetings were held to discuss best practice guidance and standards.

Feedback from the care home was positive about the care and treatment their residents received from the practice. The care home representative reported positively on the repeat prescribing systems in place and had direct access to the lead GP should any concerns arise. The National GP Patient Survey 2023 showed 64% of practice respondents reported they had enough support from local services or organisations in the previous 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions. This was in line with the National and local integrated Care System average of 68%.

Leaders gave examples of how they worked effectively across teams and services to support people. This included signposting or referring patients to other organisations such as secondary care when required. They told us regular multi-disciplinary meetings were held to discuss patients whose circumstances may make them vulnerable, for example patients receiving end of life care. Staff reported retention and recruitment in some areas had been challenging but had started to improve.

The ICB were aware of some feedback from patients regarding the Coven site. They had supported the practice decision making process in this regard. The practice had also sought guidance from the General Practice Support Team in respect of their systems and processes overall.

The practice had systems to support effective communication when working across teams and services to support people. The practice held regular meetings and shared information between teams and services to ensure continuity of care, for example when clinical tasks were delegated. We saw evidence of regular multi-disciplinary meetings, shared care agreements and appropriate referral pathways that were regularly monitored. The practice was part of a primary care network (PCN), a group of practices that shared staff for the benefit of patients.

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.