Dr Olajide Ijaola Also known as Riverside Surgery Tamworth

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 good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement.

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 by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider had systems in place to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. Our clinical searches identified 2 people out of 2406 with a potential missed diagnosis of diabetes.

From our clinical searches we found the provider had systems in place to manage and respond to safety alerts. For example, our searches looked at a Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency alert for a medication which helps with an overactive bladder. We found the total number of people identified by this search was 1 out of 8 people.

However, our clinical searches also identified several areas which required strengthening. These included instances where individuals had been coded as having received a medication review; however, there was insufficient evidence to confirm that a full review of all prescribed medicines had been conducted to ensure ongoing safety and appropriateness. In addition, we identified cases where individuals prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were not prescribed appropriate gastroprotective therapy.

Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for atranslator to be present. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

The service did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them.

Systems were not always in place to ensure care was provided in line with current guidance. Our clinical searches found that 5 out of 16 patients with Chronic Kidney Disease Stages 4 or 5 appeared not to have had the required monitoring in the last 9 months. We sampled all 5 patient records and found that 2 patients needed further action to be taken. Our clinical searches found a total of 337 people were prescribed a medicine that required monitoring. Of the 337 people, we found that 38 patients potentially had not had the required monitoring. We sampled the records of 5 patients and found 2 required further monitoring.

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.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. 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, such as via secondary care referrals.

People had access to services provided by the Mercian Primary Care Network (PCN), including social prescribers.

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 focused on identifying risks to patients’ health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, patients at risk of developing a long-term condition and those with caring responsibilities. However, the practice acknowledged that staffing levelshad hindered this focus. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

The service did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Our clinical searches identified gaps in the service’s routine monitoring of people’s care and treatment, which are necessary to support continuous improvement. For example, there were delays in the follow-up of some patients prescribed medicines that required regular monitoring. Although systems were in place to support the review of people with long-term conditions, such as annual review appointments scheduled during the patient’s birth month, the practice informed us they were behind with these recalls due to staffing shortages. They reported that recruitment was underway to address this issue.

The practice had not met national targets for screening and immunisation programmes. Data from the UK Health Security Agency (2024) showed that childhood immunisation targets were missed by small margins. Cervical screening uptake was also below national expectations. In 2024, screening coverage for eligible women aged 25–49 years within the previous 3.5 years was 67.1%, against a target of 80%. For women aged 50–64 years, the practice achieved 71.4%, compared with the expected 80%.

The service did not always keep people’s records in relation to consent to care and treatment.

The provider informed us they had recently reviewed all of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms at the care home they provide care and treatment to. However, they had not scanned these forms into people’s records, in line with guidance. Where ReSPECT forms had been completed by the hospital these were in people’s records. We discussed completing an audit of people with ReSPECT forms in place to identify which patients require these to be scanned into their records.