The Hollies 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

We reviewed 1 quality statement in the Effective key question, this included Assessing needs. The scores for the other quality statements are based on the previous rating for this key question. Overall, we found there was a lack of clinical oversight and supervision to ensure effective care was being delivered to patients.

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.

Information reviewed from the national GP patient survey (01/01/2023 to 30/04/2023) demonstrated that the percentage of respondents who stated that the last time they had a general practice appointment, the healthcare professional was good or very good at listening to them was 69.7%. The practice performance for this indicator was below the local average of 83.8% and below the national average performance of 85%. The practice did not conduct an internal patient survey to further establish the views of their patient population.

Care records systems highlighted 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 lead GP informed us they were assured they were providing effective care and treatment from regular feedback during staff meetings and positive patient feedback. The lead GP was aware of some of the gaps in the monitoring of patients and had an action plan to review this and ensure patients health care needs were routinely being met and reviewed.

We found that the system of workflow management lacked effective oversight and the management of test results required strengthening. On the day of the assessment visit to the practice, there were 2569 tasks in the workflow with the earliest task dating back to the year 2021. There were 92 pathology results that had not been filed, although the majority of these were from 7th March onwards. There was only one staff filing letters from secondary care but the scanning of these letters, on to the system was being done on a daily basis. A sample of the tasks were reviewed on the day of the assessment visit which displayed there was no risk to patient safety, but that the practice was using the task management system incorrectly. The practice used appropriate coding and alerts on the system to identify vulnerable patients. For example, we saw patients with long term conditions had been appropriately coded. Whilst registers were held for clinically vulnerable patients, due to the findings from our clinical searches, we were not assured all registers were regularly reviewed and monitored. Overall, we found effective care for the practice population required strengthening to ensure patients identified were recalled regularly and received an assessment of their needs.