Archived: Dr Mohamedtaki Walji

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

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.
We assessed all the quality statements in this key question and found that mostly patients were able to access care when they needed to. All staff put patients’ needs at the centre of their care planning and ensured services were planned around the needs of their population, particularly those at risk of poorer outcomes. The provider had systems in place to capture feedback from people and acted on it. However, the uptake of the digital triage service was slow and leaders did not have plans in place to scale up arrangements to deal with an increase in digital triage requests.
 

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.

The provider 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.
Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.
In the National GP Patient Survey 95% of people said they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment as much as they wanted to be compared with a national average of 91%. Thirty-three per cent of people had agreed a plan with their healthcare professional to manage their condition which was below the national average of 45%.
 

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.
We saw the practice worked in partnership with other providers to meet the needs of its patient population. The provider had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, working with the local integrated care board to improve education about the childhood immunisation programme. There were systems in place to ensure people who had attended the Emergency Department or had been discharged from hospital were reviewed in a timely way.
The provider worked with the wider multidisciplinary team within the community to provide integrated care for people at the end of life and cultivated close working relationships with the community palliative care team.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
A wide range of general healthcare information was available on the practice website although the website did not have any option to translate into other languages. Posters and leaflets within the waiting room provided information such as support on mental health, carer support and sexual health as well as healthy lifestyles and safeguarding information. Information to promote the uptake up of screening and immunisation programmes was available. Reception staff could provide information in other languages on request. There was information on the website about the opening times, out-of-hours care and how to register, but in the practice, there was only information about opening times. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language.
 

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.
There was a comments book for people to leave feedback at the reception desk and comments were responded to by the provider. This information was shared at staff meetings.
The practice had a patient participation group (PPG) and was working to increase the diversity of representation in this group by actively seeking out patients from under-represented groups to invite them to attend. The PPG met every six months and information was shared about changes within the practice such as the introduction of digital consultation tools.
We saw complaints were managed in line with the provider’s policy. There was information on how to complain both on the provider’s website and in the waiting room. There was a system to record and investigate complaints, and when things went wrong, staff apologised and gave people support. We reviewed the two complaints the provider had received in the previous 12 months in detail and found that the provider had investigated and responded to the complaints in a thorough and timely manner. Learning from complaints was evident and was shared with staff in practice meetings. However, the provider did not maintain a log of complaints which meant they lacked an overview from which to identify any common themes.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
People we spoke with told us it was mostly easy to get an appointment. On the day of our assessment appointments were available on the same day. On-line triage requests were completed within 24 hours.
People could book appointments via an on-line triage system, by phone or in person. Results from the National GP patient survey were above the national average for how easy it was to contact the practice by phone and via the website or NHS app. Evidence we saw showed that at least three GPs were available for telephone and face to face appointments every day. Appointments were also available with a practice nurse, a healthcare assistant and an advanced nurse practitioner.
Data provided by the practice for the previous six months showed reception staff answered an average of 1,800 calls per month and the average wait time was one minute 59 seconds. Reception staff had access to live telephony data and this was also reviewed regularly by the leadership team.
The provider had focused their practice away day in 2025 on access and as a result had in November 2025 implemented a same-day call back service. Reception staff were trained to triage call back requests and 27 appointments slots were created to accommodate the calls. Leaders showed us positive feedback from patients about this new system. An audit was ongoing to ensure the system was performing effectively.
The provider was part of a GP Federation. A GP Federation is a collaborative arrangement among local GP practices that work together to enhance healthcare delivery and improve patient care. Through the federation the provider had access to additional appointment capacity at a practice 1.4 miles away including evening appointments and extended access on Saturdays and Sundays. The federation also provided access to some specialist appointments for certain conditions such as diabetes or specialisms such as dermatology.
The provider accommodated people’s individual needs for example offering longer appointments for people who had a learning disability or required a translator. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and there was a ramp at the entrance.
 

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.
Feedback from people using the service both to the provider as well as to the CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. For example, the provider worked with a local hostel for offenders on bail to ensure people were registered quickly as they often did not remain at the hostel for long.
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.
Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service including the friends and family test data, an in-house patient survey with more than 100 response and a comments book. The friends and family test is an important national NHS feedback tool that asks people about their overall experience of services they have used and offers a range of responses. In the last 12 months of 1,246 responses for this provider 92% rated their experience as good or very good.
 

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 records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other providers when necessary.