- GP practice
Archived: Dr Mohamedtaki Walji
Assessment report published 21 April 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
Overall feedback from people was positive. Positive feedback was supported by recent survey results, including from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test, which showed people were satisfied with provider. The provider was working to build a more diverse and representative patient participation group (PPG). The PPG met twice a year and was an active forum for sharing information. People we spoke with during this inspection provided mainly positive feedback. Some people mentioned access could be difficult, but all patients were positive about the quality of their care and treatment.