• Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Dr Abdul Naeem Also known as Dog Kennel Lane Surgery

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

64 Dog Kennel Lane, Oldbury, West Midlands, B68 9LZ (0121) 552 1713

Provided and run by:
Dr Abdul Naeem

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 9 July 2025 to 10 July 2025. Dr Abdul Naeem also known as Dog Kennel Lane surgery is a GP practice and delivers services to 2192 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that 51.23% of patients are White, 30.86% Asian, 8.52% Black, 5% Mixed and 4.39% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 2nd decile (1 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

SAFE: The service had recently implemented processes for the recording of incidents and significant events; however, we found no evidence to demonstrate that there was an effective learning culture. Staff understood and managed risks. People were protected and kept safe. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained, but systems for monitoring vaccines required improvement. We found there were staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience, but feedback highlighted staff were not provided with time to complete training deemed mandatory by the provider. Staff managed the majority of medicines well; however, we found further improvements were needed in the management of long-term conditions and medicines that required regular monitoring to ensure people received the appropriate reviews and care.

EFFECTIVE: People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice; however, we found evidence based guidance was not always followed. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

CARING: People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.

RESPONSIVE: People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

WELL LED: Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening and trust. However, we found governance processes required strengthening to ensure all risks were mitigated. We identified gaps in staff training and no effective processes in place to ensure this was monitored on a regular basis. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive. 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.

We found breaches of regulation in relation to:

Regulation 12 Safe Care and Treatment and Regulation 17 Good Governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

25 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive follow up inspection at Dr Abdul Naeem’s practice on 25 October 2016. The practice had previously been inspected in January 2016 and was found to be in breach of regulation 17 (good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. During our inspection in January 2016 we found that the practice did not have effective systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of services provided. The practice was rated as requires improvement for providing services that were effective and well led and was rated requires improvement overall.

Following the inspection in January 2016 the practice sent us an action plan detailing the action they were going to take to improve. We returned to the practice to consider whether improvements had been made in response to the breaches in regulations. We found the practice had addressed the concerns previously raised and had made sufficient improvements. The practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and generally well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Since our previous inspection there were significant improvements in relation to patient outcomes for those with long term conditions.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand but not displayed. There were few formal complaints and verbal complaints were not recorded.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice had made some adaptations to the premises to support those with a disability.
  • The premises was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice sought feedback from staff and patients but had limited engagement with patients through the patient participation group.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Review systems for documenting safety alerts to ensure they have been reviewed and acted on.
  • Maintain accurate records for monitoring the cleaning of clinical equipment.
  • Ensure immunisation records are maintained for appropriate staff.
  • Review the contact list in the business continuity plan to ensure it is accurate and up to date.
  • Ensure the window in the health care assistants room is covered when in use to promote privacy for patients.
  • In the absence of a hearing loop, review and identify how patients with a hearing impairment may be supported.
  • Ensure information is visibly displayed to raise patient awareness of the complaints system and introduce a system for recording verbal complaints so that learning may be gained from them.
  • Review and identify ways in which patient involvement in the practice may be improved.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

26 January 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Abdul Naeem’s surgery on 26 January 2016. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment and urgent appointments available the same day.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey published in January 2016 showed that patient’s responded positively regarding access to care and treatment.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
  • The practice carried out regular medicines audits, with the support of the local CCG pharmacy teams, to ensure prescribing was in line with best practice guidelines for safe prescribing. However there was no audit plan in place for continuous monitoring of quality of services.
  • There were uncollected prescriptions; some were nearly two months old. This meant that insufficient safeguards were in place to ensure that patients always received medicines in a timely way.
  • The performance indicators for the management of diabetes, hypertension and mental health were lower than the national average.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • Ensure effective systems are developed and implemented in order to assess, monitor, and improve outcomes for patients and the quality of services provided.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Consider improving the process for the review of uncollected prescriptions. 

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice