Dr Imran Gohar Also known as SYDENHAM HOUSE DOCTORS SURGERY

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

Staff supported people to live healthier lives, monitoring their care and treatment to ensure they received positive and consistent outcomes.

The practice recognised that uptake of vaccinations and cervical screening was impacted by its transient and diverse population. It had implemented recall systems, opportunistic screening processes and good appointment availability to support patient uptake and access.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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 people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives or those living in a women’s refuge. These patients were read coded to ensure prompt identification and signposting to relevant support services. The practice was in the process of being allocated a new social prescriber and could refer patients to a community mental health link worker.

Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive, consistent and met the expectations of people themselves.

The practice met national minimum targets for 3 out of 5 childhood immunisations. Uptake was below average for 2 out of 5 of these targets.

The service performed in line with the England average in relation to the number of new cancer cases treated resulting from an urgent suspected cancer referral. However, the practice was performing below average in relation to 2 cervical cancer indicators.

In respect of the lower uptake of vaccinations and cervical screening, the provider explained that there were challenges in uptake due to the transient nature of some of their patients who lived in temporary accommodation. In addition, the practice served a diverse population within an area of deprivation, which presented further challenges to engagement with preventative health services. Patients had been appropriately clinically coded to enable opportunistic screening and vaccination when they attended appointments.

Clinical staff explained that a targeted annual programme was undertaken to maximise uptake and improve outcomes through robust recall processes and direct patient contact. There was good availability of appointments, and patients told us they were often able to access appointments on the same day. Our interview with the nurse confirmed that effective recall systems were in place and that staff received appropriate training to meet patient needs. The practice also benefited from a GP with a special interest in gynaecology and sexual health, and another GP with a special interest in dermatology, enabling patients to access a wider range of services without requiring referral to secondary care.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.