Dr Mehboob Bhatti Also known as Sutton Road Surgery

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 of quality statements under the key question responsive and found:

Leaders had increased capacity and improved access, prioritising actions to reduce inequalities and ensure equitable access to care. Services were designed to be timely and accessible for all, with resources targeted to meet the needs of groups most at risk of poorer outcomes.

Care planning was shaped by a clear understanding of local population health needs, keeping people and communities central to decisions.

Partnership working helped ensure services met the diverse needs of the community, and people were encouraged to give feedback, which informed ongoing improvements.

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 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 people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed people 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 91.2%. Sixty-four per cent of people had agreed a plan with their healthcare professional to manage their condition compared with a national average of 44.9%.

The service 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 provider worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. Staff told us they tried to “make every contact count”, this is an evidence-based approach which encourages health and social care staff to use the opportunities arising during their routine interactions with people to have conversations about how they might make positive improvements to their health or wellbeing. They worked to pre‑empt further appointments by integrating care where possible. For example, when mothers attended for their babies’ 12‑week immunisations, staff also offered cervical screening or post‑gestational diabetes blood tests.

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 staff at the local hospice.

The service 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 which could be translated into over 100 languages. There was a television in the waiting room which displayed a variety of health promotion messages. Posters and leaflets within the waiting room provided information such as support on mental health, bereavement, 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 at the practice and on the website about the opening times, out-of-hours care and how to register. We noted that posters in the waiting room about how to complain were only in English. The provider added information in Hindi and Urdu (the 2 most common languages in the local population after English) the day after our assessment. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language.

The service 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 box for people to leave feedback in the waiting room and comments were responded to by the provider.

The practice had an active patient participation group (PPG) and members of the PPG we spoke with said that leaders listened and responded to feedback. This included discussing the action plan that the provider had formulated in response to the National GP Patient Survey results.

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 2 complaints in detail and found that the provider had investigated and responded to the complaints in a thorough and timely manner. The provider had received 2 formal complaints in the previous 12 months. Learning from complaints was evident and was shared with staff in practice meetings.

Feedback from people in the National GP Patient survey showed that 89% of people felt their healthcare professional was good at listening to them, this is above the national average of 86.9%.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Data from the National GP Patient Survey showed that patient satisfaction with ease of contacting the practice by phone, via the website or the NHS app was above the national average. People we spoke with told us it was mostly easy to get an appointment, usually on the same day or the next day. On the day of our assessment appointments were available on the same day. On-line triage requests were completed within 24 hours and requests for repeat medications or sick notes were added to a clinic for the duty doctor to deal with which provided a clear audit trail.

During our previous assessment of this provider, we raised concerns about limited appointment availability specifically in the middle of the day. The provider had now significantly increased capacity employing 3 locum doctors and a variety of non-medical clinical staff. The practice population had grown by 45% since our last inspection, however the number of available appointments had increased by 65% from 14,000 to 23,000 between September 2023 and September 2025. Appointments were available between 8am and 6.30pm 3 days a week and between 8am and 8pm 2 days a week. Appointments were available on Saturdays at a nearby surgery between 8am and 1pm as part of an enhanced access service. People could book appointments via an on-line triage system, by phone or in person. Data provided by the practice for the previous 3 months showed reception staff answered an average of 1700 calls per month and the average wait time was less than 1 minute. Reception staff had access to live telephony data and this was also reviewed regularly by the leadership team.

The provider had identified high “Did not attend” (DNA) rates in 2024 and undertook an analysis to find out the reasons behind this. As a result, a new policy was implemented of targeted contact by phone, text message and letter with patients who did not attend for an appointment. Patients were contacted before their appointment as a reminder and following the appointment, if they did not attend, staff called to find out why and rebook the appointment. If there were 3 or more instances of DNA then the practice manager would contact the patient by letter. This resulted in a reduction in DNAs of 26% over 6 months.

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, however, due to the lack of automatic doors at the entrance wheelchair users, people with mobility scooters or people with pushchairs would struggle to access the premises without assistance. The provider was aware of this limitation and had plans in place to install automatic doors when refurbishment work was carried out in the next 12 months.

The practice was growing rapidly with a 45% increase in people registered from 1900 in 2023 to 2700 in 2025. Members of the steering board told us they expect this growth to continue for at least the next 12 months and that they had plans in place to increase capacity in line with growth including extending the premises.

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 provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to us, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. 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 without a registered address or proof of identity could register at the practice. The practice was a Safe Surgery; this meant that they were committed to tackling the barriers to healthcare faced by those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and migrants. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service. The practice provided GP services to a local care home. Staff at the care home reported that the GP attended weekly to review the residents, long-term condition reviews were completed and other staff attended to take blood tests for residents if they could not travel to the surgery. Care home staff said they never had any difficulty getting their residents seen by a GP.

Feedback from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 88% of people described their experience of the provider as good compared with the national average of 75.4%.

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 Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) orders. This information was shared with other services when necessary.