The Willows Medical 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

We looked at two quality statements which reviewed peoples care and treatment and whether this was evidence based.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

The practice mostly made sure people’s care and treatment was effective. The practice mostly planned and delivered evidence-based care and treatment.

This service scored 67 (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 mostly made sure people’s care and treatment was effective. As part of the assessment a number of set clinical record searches were undertaken by a CQC GP specialist adviser. A sample of the records of patients with long-term health conditions were checked to ensure the required monitoring was taking place. These searches were visible to the practice. We reviewed four out of 30 patients with asthma who had received the two or more courses of rescue steroids and found two patients had not received steroid emergency cards, in some there was a lack of recording the reasoning behind the decision to issue the medicine and there was no follow up for all patients. The practice immediately carried out an audit and put in place an action plan to ensure they were following best practice guidelines. We reviewed two patients who were prescribed an anti-arrhythmic medicine who records indicated the medicine may no longer be required. The search identified 179 patients diagnosed with hyperthyroidism and four who had not been monitored for 18 months. We sampled three of these patient records and found some patients were overdue monitoring. We found the practice had mostly good clinical oversight of diabetes. For example, we found the search for patients with the possible missed diagnosis of diabetes following a blood test result, identified 30 patients. We sampled four and found on two occasions the practice had not fully followed national guidelines regarding the scheduling of the monitoring. We found patients with chronic kidney disease had received the correct monitoring.

The national GP patient survey carried out from January to March 2024 had 120 responses. This asked patients whether their needs were met, was the healthcare professional good at listening to them, and were they involved in decisions about their care. The patients’ responses for these categories were above both the national and local area national averages.

The practice mostly planned and delivered evidence-based care and treatment. The practice was a GP training practice, and leaders and staff told us the practice had systems and processes to keep clinicians up to date with current evidence-based practice. In addition, they carried out spot audits of clinical staff consultation records to ensure the quality of care and treatment. Staff had access to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines (NICE), monthly clinical meetings and the pharmacist also alerted the clinical team to any changes in NICE guidance. The leaders stated they regular participated in meetings, workshops, and training sessions within the primary care network and integrated care services frameworks. In addition, staff had protected time to attend training. The GP trainees as part of their training carried out projects, examples of this were use of artificial intelligence and review of patient medication to ensure patients were on the correct medicines.

The practice had gained an award for a cardiovascular disease project, where patients received a desktop review, allowing GPs to decide who from the primary care team was best equipped to review the patient and ensure they were receiving the best treatment, in line with local and NICE guidance.

The practice had a GP lead who monitored weekly the uptake of long-term health condition patient reviews. The practice submitted unverified data to demonstrate, at the time of the assessment, from 1 April 2024 to present time the practice had completed 80% asthma, 80% diabetes, 85% mental health reviews and 29 out of 30 annual learning disability reviews. The practice had achieved over 86% for two of the childhood immunisation targets and an average of 80% for uptake of cervical screening which met the national target of 80%.

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.