Sudbury and Alperton 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 2 quality statements 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. The provider was taking action to encourage more people to participate in childhood immunisation and the national cancer screening programmes.

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.

People were positive about their interactions with clinical staff. They told us that clinical staff asked appropriate questions to assist with diagnosis and treatment.

The clinicians and staff described how they assessed and recorded the patients’ needs of patients, including people’s communication needs. The practice team used the electronic patient records system to code specific needs to ensure staff were made aware of these.

Clinical staff used validated templates, for example when carrying out care planning or long-term condition reviews, to ensure that all relevant issues were covered including patients’ wider health and wellbeing. There were systems in place for sharing clinical updates and reviewing clinical cases for learning. The lead GPs had clinical oversight of the team but systems tended to be informal (for example, verbal discussion and feedback) rather than documented audit or review. Better documentation would provide key learning points for future reference and support the clinical leaders in monitoring progress.

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.

The feedback we reviewed did not show any concerns about people’s experience regarding monitoring and improving outcomes at this practice.

The leaders and staff were able to describe actions taken to encourage people to attend for screening and immunisation, for example, individually contacting people who had not attended cervical screening by telephone to explain the benefits of the test. Staff told us that practice performance was regularly reviewed and discussed at team meetings.

We carried out a series of structured searches of the practice electronic records system which showed that the practice had effective systems in place to call and recall patients with long-term conditions to monitor and promote positive outcomes in line with guidelines.

The provider was achieving just under 90% childhood immunisation coverage in line with the recommended schedule for children by the age of 1 and 2 years old (2023 figures). More recently published data from the 2023/24 Quality and Outcomes Framework showed that the practice was maintaining this level of coverage. Performance on cervical screening was markedly below the 80% national target but had improved over the previous year. The practice team was actively working to increase uptake of childhood immunisations and cervical screening but there was scope to further improve its strategy to meet published targets.

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.