Dr Azim and Partners

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We assessed all quality statements for this key question and rated the practice as good for providing caring services. At our last comprehensive inspection in November 2022, we rated this key question as requires improvement. We looked for evidence the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. Whilst we saw some negative feedback in the GP patient survey, we were assured that the practice was addressing feedback and acting on concerns raised to make improvements to services.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We reviewed the results from the national GP patient survey carried out from January to March 2024. A total of 123 surveys were completed by patients which was a completion rate of 21%. The patients’ responses for these categories were lower, sometimes markedly lower, than the national and local area national averages.

The survey showed 59% of patients who responded to the survey felt that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at listening to them. This was lower than the local average GP practice score of 84% and lower than the national average GP practice score of 87%. 64.3% of patients who responded to the survey indicated that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at treating them with care and concern. This was lower than the local average GP practice score of 83% and lower than the national average score of 85%. 81.1% of patients who responded to the survey indicated that during their last appointment they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to. This was lower than the local average GP practice score of 91% and lower than the national average score of 92%. 39.9% of patients responded in the survey positively to the overall experience of the practice. This was lower than the local average GP practice score of 72% and lower than the national average score of 74%.

We were told by staff members we spoke with the practice treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, with patients’ dignity and privacy being respected. Patient choice was respected, for example, patients were able to request a chaperone for an appointment and staff had received the relevant chaperone training. Staff treated colleagues and partners from other organisations with kindness and respect. Privacy curtains were used in clinical rooms and there was a room that could be used for patients to have private conversations where required. Staff members we spoke with told us that they understood the demographic of patients within the practice and accommodated people from different cultures and backgrounds and worked to reduce barriers to care, by providing interpreters and longer appointments or adjustments for mobility impairments. The practice had a policy for bereaved patients and provided information to patients who had recently been bereaved about support and counselling. The practice had an undated vulnerable patients policy and kept lists of vulnerable patients. Staff members had received care navigation training and would book patients double appointments where this was required to assist with their care and treatment.

In the national GP patient survey, 73.4% of patients who responded indicated that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. This was lower than the local average GP practice score of 90% and lower than the national average score of 91%. A total of 123 surveys were completed by patients which was a completion rate of 21%. We reviewed the surveys conducted by the practice and the Friends and Family Test feedback, which were carried out under a different methodology to the GP National Patient Survey. We saw that feedback was predominantly positive in these surveys.

Staff members we spoke with told us that the practice treated people as individuals and ensured people’s care and treatment met their needs and preferences. The practice told us that it took account of people’s culture, backgrounds and equality characteristics and worked to reduce barriers to access to care and treatment. We saw evidence of this where the practice took account of cultural considerations and worked to reduce barriers to uptake of cervical screening and childhood immunisations. The practice had a number of staff members who spoke 10 different languages to assist with patient interaction and used interpreters where required to meet the communication needs of the patient population.

We saw evidence the practice promoted people’s independence and promoted patient choice and control over their care, treatment and wellbeing. The practice had an identification of carers policy and carers register, and had a noticeboard area in the reception area with information for patients. The practice provided assistance if a patient had a visual impairment. The practice had a hearing loop in reception and the surgery was accessible for patients with impaired mobility and provided us with an example of when it had arranged for a British Sign Language interpreter to assist a patient. The practice told us it made adjustments for patients to facilitate their access to services. The practice arranged for home visits for patients where they were unable to attend the surgery. The practice provided longer appointments for patients who required additional support to allow them to participate in their care and treatment. The practice added flags to its clinical records system to indicate where patients may need additional assistance.

The practice told us it listened to and understood people’s needs and wishes. The practice had a system to identify patients who required urgent care. Staff members we spoke with were aware of what action to take in the event of a medical emergency and were aware of how to escalate concerns and raise an alarm. The practice had a medical emergency policy which staff could refer to on the Teams channel. Staff members had received Sepsis training and this was regularly discussed in practice meetings. There was information displayed around the practice about the signs of Sepsis. Any patient emergency that occurred at the practice would be recorded as a significant event, was analysed for learning opportunities and was discussed at practice meetings.

The practice told us it had identified the challenge of recruitment and that it had recently recruited 3 GPs to meet capacity and demand. The practice promoted education and training for staff members. The practice had a diverse population of staff and respected people’s backgrounds. Staff members had completed an external training course regarding compassion. The practice had a strong focus on the wellbeing of staff members. It promoted the use of an external HR service, which offered confidential counselling sessions, had an employee of the month award to recognise contribution, held a mental health awareness week where information was sent to staff members on how to seek support, and the GP partners arranged extra-curricular activities for staff members such as team dinners and away days. The practice operated an open-door policy with staff, and staff we interviewed spoke positively about their employment at the practice. Staff members stated they felt supported in their development, and they felt comfortable and confident in raising any concerns with management. The practice conducted an anonymous staff survey where staff members could raise any concerns and the results were due to be analysed in August 2024. Staff members were given an opportunity during practice meetings to raise any concerns or make suggestions for improvements. The practice provided us with an example of where a suggestion from staff members had directly led to an improvement to the service where the time for the online appointments form was left open for longer, which led to a reduction in the number of incoming calls to the practice. The practice told us this change had also led to an improvement in the feedback received from patients.