The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Mohammed Abedi Also known as East Enfield Medical Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The Surgery, 340 High Street, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 4DE 0844 815 1474

Provided and run by:
Dr Mohammed Abedi

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr Mohammed Abedi on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Dr Mohammed Abedi, you can give feedback on this service.

28 September 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive at Dr Mohammed Abedi (also known as East Enfield Medical Practice) on 28 September 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive - Good

Well-led – Good

Following our previous inspection on 19 September 2019, the practice was rated Good overall and for all key questions.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Mohammed Abedi on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out this inspection in response to risk; specifically regarding child immunisation rates and cervical screening uptake rates which were lower than local and national averages.

How we carried out the inspection

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing and on site.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A short site visit.

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We found that:

  • The practice’s management of long-term conditions reflected current evidence-based guidance, standards and best practice.
  • When things went wrong, there were systems in place to review, investigate and learn.
  • We noted an isolated instance where the practice had not acted on a safety alert and advised a patient of the risks associated with their medication. Systems were otherwise in place to act on safety alerts.
  • Leaders were aware of the practice’s lower than average performance on child immunisations; citing significant local vaccine hesitancy. We noted a range of interventions aimed at improving performance.
  • Unverified practice data indicated the provider was meeting its cervical screening uptake target.
  • Complaints were handled appropriately - including timely acknowledgment, response and appropriate systems for learning from complaints.
  • We saw evidence of quality improvement activity aimed at improving local health inequalities. This included evidence of clinical audit (although a structured clinical audit programme was not in place).
  • The practice had received national recognition regarding its Over 65s flu vaccination uptake.
  • Patient feedback was above local and national averages regarding phone and appointments access. Patients fed back that they could access the right care at the right time.
  • Practice management and governance arrangements supported the delivery of high-quality, patient centred care.

We saw evidence of outstanding practice:

  • We noted the practice had achieved a 98% uptake regarding its 2021/22 Over 65s Flu vaccination programme. The practice manager spoke positively about how improved recall systems, targeted advertising, dedicated clinics and a focus on vulnerable patients and their carers had been pivotal to this success. The provider had been recognized as the best performing practice in England in 2019/20 and subsequently been invited by NHS England to share its approach with other practices across North London.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Continue to monitor and take action to improve child immunisation uptake rates.
  • Take action to review and monitor its patient safety alerts protocol.
  • Take action to introduce a structured clinical audit programme.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

19 September 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We decided to undertake an inspection of this service on 19 September 2019 following our annual review of the information available to us. We previously inspected on 20 April 2016 (at which time the service was rated as Good overall). The full comprehensive report on the 20 April 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all services’ link for Dr Mohammed Abedi on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection looked at the following key questions: Effective and Well led.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

•what we found when we inspected

•information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and

•information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as good overall.

We rated the practice as good for providing effective services because:

•People had good outcomes as a result of receiving effective care and treatment that met their needs.

•Information about people’s care and treatment was routinely collected, monitored and acted upon.

We rated the practice as good for providing well-led services because:

•The culture of the practice and the way it was led and managed drove the delivery and improvement of high-quality, person-centred care.

•Clinical audit processes functioned well and had a positive impact in relation to quality governance, with clear evidence of action to resolve concerns.

We have rated this practice as good overall and good for all population groups.

We found that:

•Clinical audit was routinely carried out and was used to drive improvements in patient outcomes.

•Accurate and up-to-date information about effectiveness was discussed, used and understood by staff.

•Governance arrangements supported the delivery of high-quality person-centred care and there was an effective process in place to identify, monitor and address risks (for example relating to safeguarding, medicines management and staffing).

•People who used the service told us the provider actively involved them in service. improvements.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

•Continue to review and refine systems for monitoring the health status of patients who are exception reported or excluded from data collected to calculate achievement scores for the Quality and Outcomes Framework (a voluntary reward and incentive programme which rewards GP practices in England for the quality of care they provide to their patients).

•Continue to review and refine systems for improving childhood immunisations and cervical screening uptake.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

20th April 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Mohammed Abedi (known as East Enfield Medical Practice). Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment, except in relation to training on Information Governance.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour

Improvements that the provider should make to the service:-

  • Review how patients with caring responsibilities are identified and recorded on the clinical system to ensure information, advice and support is available to them.
  • To ensure all staff undertake Information Governance training.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice