Dr S Bassi & Associates Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same. However, we did identify some issues with listening to and involving people, and equity in experiences and outcomes.

This service scored 68 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The service did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas as the systems and processes to seek and act on feedback from people were not well developed. There was no evidence of patient surveys carried out or analysis of patient feedback detailing actions taken to improve the quality of service provided. Meeting minutes did not detail any discussions of patient feedback and there was no active patient participation group. Following the assessment, the provider sent us evidence that they gathered patient feedback via sms messages however there was no analysis or action plans based on the feedback.

There was a clear procedure for people to raise complaints and there was a feedback box at the reception area. There had been 1 complaint over the last year and evidence from meeting minutes that it had been discussed.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

National GP Patient Survey data from March 2024 showed that the service was performing higher than average for patient feedback relating to access to the service.

The service did not have processes to evidence equality and diversity training for all staff.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances. However, vulnerable patients were not coded on the computer system and therefore clinical staff would not be made aware in the consultation to any potential concerns.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.