Martonside Medical Centre

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 1 quality statement from this key question. We have combined the scores for this area with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question remains good. 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.

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.

Feedback from people using the service about their experiences of assessment and review of their needs was positive. In the GP national patient survey 2024, 91% of respondents reported they were as involved as much as they wanted in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. (Compared to an ICS average of 92% and an England average of 91%). Similarly, 89% reported they felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment (compared to an ICS average of 91% and an England average of 90%). The patients we spoke with in advance of the site visit, told us about their positive experiences of assessment of their needs and appropriate treatment being identified and where appropriate referrals made. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs.

Leaders told us there were arrangements in place to assess and review the health, care and wellbeing of patients. This took account of patients’ communication needs. Digital flags were used within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present. Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. The practice used templates to guide clinical staff in completing assessments and reviews to ensure they followed best clinical practice. The practice had identified during preparation for the CQC site visit that NHS health checks had not been routinely scheduled and carried out, since the pandemic. (NHS Health checks help to spot early signs and help prevent conditions such as high blood pressure, heart disease or type 2 diabetes developing.) As such they had already restarted the process of inviting in patients for this and had a number of NHS check appointments scheduled to carry out. Health checks for patients with learning disabilities were carried out, and the practice had achieved 85% take up over the last 12 months.

During our review of clinical records, we found generally arrangements were in place to review patients with long term conditions and identify those most at risk of developing one. For example, all patients with chronic kidney disease stages 4 or 5 had received regular monitoring. There were some minor areas for improvement identified. For example, although patients experiencing an acute exacerbation of asthma had a review at the time they were prescribed steroid treatment and all had previously been prescribed inhalers, not all had received a review within 7 days to ensure their symptoms had resolved. The practice sent us a new protocol after the site visit, which they had implemented in response to the feedback, to ensure these checks took place routinely going forward. The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber. The practice was below target on population coverage of cervical screening and some childhood immunisations. The practice told us they would investigate the reasons for any below target uptake to inform how they could increase this in the future. The practice contacted us after the site visit to share the results of their investigation and review of unpublished (but more current) data.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.