Dr S Bassi & Associates Ltd

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 for evidence that 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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as requires improvement. Previously, we found published uptake rates for childhood immunisations were markedly below the national targets. At this assessment, the rating remains the same. Although there had been some improvement in childhood immunisation uptake they were still below target, cervical cancer screening uptake was below target and we identified concerns in other areas of the delivery of effective care.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Feedback from people using the service was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs.

Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. However, our clinical searches identified that people’s medicine reviews were not always completed in a timely way. For example, we identified 39 patients on 10 or more medicines who had not received a review in the last 18 months.

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 service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. However, care and treatment was not always delivered in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. For example, we found National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance was not always followed in relation to the prescribing of medicines that required monitoring and in relation to medicine reviews.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. The practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to patients’ health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and patients at risk of developing a long-term condition. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

The arrangements to monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it were not well developed. In relation to monitoring clinical outcomes, the practice provided 2 audits, 1 relating to minor surgery post-surgical complications and a second audit triggered by a Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency alert.

The practice had not met national targets for screening and immunisations. We asked for the practice’s recall policy however they could not provide one. We noted from April 2025 meeting minutes, an action plan had been discussed for dealing with complex cohorts including immunisations and cytology. However, there was no detail of what was discussed and no formal action plans in place.

Following the assessment, the provider assured us that robust recall systems were in place including actions they take to encourage uptake.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.