Tulasi Medical Centre

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 assessed the key questions for safe and effective. This is the first time under its current registration with CQC we have looked at the key question of responsive.

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.

We spoke to patients during the site visit and on the phone and they told us clinicians made them feel involved and supported in decisions about their care. This was reflected in the National GP Patient Survey (2024) in which 80% of patients felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment and 86% of patients felt their needs were met during their last appointment.

We saw examples of how staff and leaders put patients at the centre of their care and treatment, for example, the practice was in the top two practices in the borough in completing urgent care plans for patients.

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.

Leaders at the practice recognised the important of continuity of care for patients with more complex conditions and towards the end of life. We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, the practice, as part of the Primary Care Network (PCN), were involved in a health equity programme to assist patients with issues related to poverty, ethnicity, disability and English as a second language.

The practice was involved in pop-up clinics to raise awareness for cancer screening programmes and the promotion of healthy lifestyles.

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. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

Systems were in place for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Whilst the service had an appropriate system to manage complaints that staff were aware of, improvements were required in ensuring all complaints were recorded in a consistent manner. We reviewed practice complaints and found not all complaints were logged in sufficient detail. Issues raised by the patient and responses to patients was not always detailed in the complaints log. We saw evidence that complaints were discussed in staff meetings, with learning from complaints discussed. Complaints were saved on a practice database, an Excel spreadsheet and physically on paper. The practice agreed to immediately streamline complaints onto one system after the assessment.

An appropriate complaints policy was in place and information on how to make complaints was available to patients. We spoke to patients during the site visit and from the Patient Participation Group and all patients were aware on how to make complaints.

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

The National GP Patient Survey (2024) was completed by 94 patients and showed low scores regarding patient access. Twenty-three percent of patients stated they found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone and 17% of patients found it easy to contact the GP using the practice website. We received a mixed response regarding ease of access to the practice when speaking to patients during the site visit and on the phone. The practice conducted their own patient survey and found there was a 45% satisfaction rate in telephone accessibility, a 50% satisfaction rate on waiting times over the phone and a 45% satisfaction rate on website usability.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from their own survey, leaders had identified changes to improve access to the service. The practice enhanced telephone accessibility by, for example, introducing a call-back system, increased the number of reception staff during peak hours and implemented automated systems to direct patients to appropriate departments. The practice had different methods to increase patient access. This included the expansion of available appointment slots and access to alternative healthcare professionals, the promotion of digital services through offering step-by-step guidance and training sessions and developing clear signage and information system at the front desk to help patients navigate more efficiently. Appointments were also offered on evenings and weekends.

Feedback provided by people using the service was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities.

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 such as homeless people and travellers.

Staff provided examples of how they used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service. For example, recording a patient preference to only see female GPs on the practices’ clinical database.

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.

We reviewed the practices’ palliative care list to see if decisions about a patient’s preference to Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) were recorded. Our review showed DNACPR decisions were made in line with relevant legislation and showed that, where possible, the patient’s views had been sought and respected. This information was shared with other services when necessary.