All inspections: Dr Mohamedtaki Walji - Care Quality Commission

Date of Inspection: 18 December 2025 to 14 Jan 2026. Dr Mohammedtaki Walji is a GP practice which delivers services to 5,600 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that 51% of the practice population are Asian, 20% White, 11% Black, 4% Mixed and 14% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the first decile (1 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This inspection considered the demographics of the people using the provider, the context the provider was working within and how this impacted provider delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.
The provider is registered with Care Quality Commission (CQC) under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to provide the following regulated activities: treatment of disease, disorder or injury, diagnostic and screening procedures, maternity and midwifery services, family planning services and surgical procedures. We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection which included assessing all five key questions (Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-Led). This inspection was in response to information of concern received by the CQC. This practice had previously been inspected in 2016 and was rated good overall.
The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained. People were protected and kept safe There were enough staff with the right qualifications and experience . The provider had a learning culture and people could raise concerns. However, although managers investigated incidents thoroughly, we were not assured that systems were in place to capture all learning events and complaints. Staff understood risk, but there were not always appropriate processes in place to mitigate potential risks within the environment. Systems to ensure staff received the appropriate training were not always effective. Overall, staff managed medicines safely. However, we found a cohort of older people where risks associated with a specific medicine had not been safely managed and had not been identified by the provider’s own quality monitoring systems.
People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Mostly care was based on the latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving between providers. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.
People were treated with kindness and compassion. The provider had developed a charity fund and used this to support the most vulnerable members of their practice population. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The provider supported staff wellbeing.
People were involved in decisions about their care. The provider supplied information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback, and the provider took it seriously and acted on it. Services were easy to access and non-discriminatory. People received fair and equal care and treatment. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.
Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, approachable and supportive to staff. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas. However, leaders did not always demonstrate they had a comprehensive understanding and oversight of governance systems . The provider’s quality monitoring processes were not sufficiently robust to reliably capture all areas for improvement; this was reflected in the gaps identified during this inspection.
We found breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Walji and Colleagues on 1 June 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed. The practice carried out an annual significant event audit to ensure learning from significant events was embedded.
Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. The GPs were leads in different areas and had weekly meetings to discuss concerns and share learning.
There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by the GPs and the practice manager. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients which it acted on. There was a very pro-active Patient Participation Group (PPG) of which we met with four members during the inspection.
The practice was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
Patients described staff as caring and helpful. Patients commented that they were treated with dignity and respect
Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
Staff had also attended education sessions in female genital mutilation (FGM) and Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) which was domestic violence training.

We saw areas of outstanding practice:

The practice had been involved in the Irish Project from 2000 onwards, which involved proactive outreach work in the local community to identify and target vulnerable patients for care and treatment. Initially this project was initiated by the Primary Care Trust (PCT) but the practice continued this as a voluntary project. As a result of this project 324 undiagnosed serious diseases were picked up by the practice such as COPD, depression, asthma, arthritis and cancer. The practice was then able to refer patients where this was needed and to start patients on the correct treatment such as having x-rays, blood tests, counselling and psychotherapy.
Staff told us that there was a practice charity fund which was used to pay for help for patients where emergency support was needed, for example providing a bag of essential items for those requiring unexpected hospital admissions. Therefore when the practice became aware that patients might benefit from this the fund was used for this purpose.
Staff told us about examples of when the GPs supported patients by paying for their taxis to get to hospital when an ambulance was not required.

However, there was an area of practice where the provider should make improvements:

The provider should:

Consider documenting verbal complaints so that any trends can be identified and lessons learned.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Archived: Dr Mohamedtaki Walji

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

1 June 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice