Dr Olajide Ijaola Also known as Riverside Surgery Tamworth

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.

This service scored 71 (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.

Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs.

Data from the National GP survey results 2025 showed 72.5% of respondents responded positively to the overall experience of their GP practice, which in line with national average of 75.4%.

Extended appointments were available for those who needed them.

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.

The service had an understanding of the diverse health and care needs of individuals. The service collaborated with partner organizations to address the needs of its patient population, including working closely with the local Primary Care Network (PCN). 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.

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 always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

We saw complaints were not managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was not evident and there was no system in place to record or investigate complaints. Although there was information poster in the reception area about complaints, it directed people to reception for further information, which could cause a barrier to people who wanted to complain. We spoke to leaders about this who stated they would put information leaflets in the reception area about the complaints process.

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

Data from the National GP Patient Survey 2025 showed 84% of people were positive about how easy it was to contact GP practice on the phone compared to the expected of 52.9%. The practice had extended appointments available, for example for people with a learning disability. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and level access entrance was in place at the main door.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

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 such as homeless people and Travellers.

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 review of records indicated that people were supported to consider and document their preferences for end-of-life care. This included decisions regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation when documentation had been completed by the hospital. The provider informed us that ReSPECT forms had been completed for individuals living in local care homes; however, we were unable to verify this, as these documents had not yet been incorporated into people’s clinical records.

The care home we spoke with confirmed that the practice reviewed ReSPECT forms and appropriately involved family members in decision-making.

The provider also reported that they maintained working relationships with the local hospice and district nursing team, and that referrals to relevant services were made as required to ensure appropriate support for people nearing the end of life.