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

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Requires Improvement.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to:

• Patients with long term conditions were not being reviewed regularly to ensure they received the appropriate care and treatment.

We found that the management of patients with long term conditions needed improving, patients’ needs were not always assessed and care and treatment was not always delivered in line with current legislation and evidence-based guidelines. We also found there was limited clinical oversight and a lack of supervision.

Patients received care and treatment that supported them to live healthier lives including being supported to undertake national screening programmes and vaccinations. The majority of patients who required monitoring underwent regular checks on their health.

Multi-disciplinary meetings were held where the needs of patients with complex conditions or those approaching the end of life could be discussed, reviewed and planned for.

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 service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy. National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. Staff we spoke with understood Gillick competency and there was a process to ensure young adults had control over their own privacy and the amount of parental involvement in managing their care and support.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Patients’ personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were understood and met. Patient communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care.

Resources were available such as language line to support patients who didn’t have English as a first language and practice staff spoke a range of languages to support the local community. Staff we spoke with were aware of the needs of the practice’s population and gave us examples on how they supported patients. For example, appointments were offered at different times of the day to suit people's needs.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff helped patients and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services. The practice had access to a social prescriber through the primary care network who provided support and information on local services within the community. The people we spoke with on the day of the onsite assessment told us they felt included in decisions about their care and treatment.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The practice had access to a range of clinical services through the primary care network which included mental health practitioners, pharmacists and physiotherapists.

There was a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The provider had a small number of staff working at the practice and this contributed to the family work environment staff told us about. The practice staff said they felt valued by the leadership team. We spoke with a range of staff on the day and found staff were positive about working at the practice and the support they received. Staff told us that they had been well supported when needed and adjustments had been made when required to ensure that staff were able to do their role effectively.