Dr Hazim Ahmad Also known as Lawford 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

We looked for evidence the service met people’s needs, and staff treated people equally and without discrimination. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service performed better than the national average in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. This showed people could access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the service’s website. For example, 73% of respondents to the survey responded positively to how easy it was to contact the service by phone, compared to a national average of 53%. In addition, 84% of people responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice, compared to a national average of 70%. Staff spoken with told us access was determined by patient need and they worked to accommodate people. For example, if a patient did not feel able to call or request an appointment online, they would accept the request in writing and complete the online form on their behalf. Compliments received by the practice were positive regarding the ease of access, as were online reviews which highlighted the exceptional responsiveness of the practice regarding availability of appointments and being seen quickly.

Staff members spoken with told us the practice used a total triage system, and all appointment requests were overseen by a GP. The process was continuously monitored and reviewed on a daily basis. On the day and routine appointments were available at the practice as triage was organised to ensure patients were directed to the appropriate clinician to meet their needs.

Treatment and consulting rooms were on the ground floor. The practice was accessible for wheelchair users or baby buggies. Accessible parking was available on the premises.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local services, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. For example, the practice as part of their primary care network had well-being coaches and a dedicated social prescriber to support patients as needed. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, which included those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. This was reflected in the feedback shared from people who used the service, which was positive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.