Dr Amar Kaw Also known as Ingrebourne Medical Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that staff monitored people’s care and treatment and supported them to live healthier lives. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. The GP provided several examples of how they enabled and empowered patients to self-manage their care and well-being. One example was a tailored diet plan and exercise routine to manage prediabetes and type-2 diabetes.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and those with caring responsibilities. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive, consistent and met the expectations of people themselves.

The service had not met the national targets for the uptake of childhood immunisations, screening for breast, bowel and cervical cancer. Their uptake in most cases was slightly below the national targets and above some local practices within the area.

The national target for childhood immunisation uptake is 90%. The practice’s uptake of childhood immunisations for children aged 1 was 95%. For children aged 2 the practice achieved 88%, 88% and 86% across the three indicators. For children aged 5 the practice achieved 78%.

Data highlighted that cervical screening uptake for women aged 24-49 was at 73%, and for women aged 50-64 was 75% compared to the 80% target.

The service was performing higher than England averages in relation to breast cancer screening but below national averages for bowel cancer screening. For example, breast cancer screening coverage for 2024/25 was recorded as75%,compared to a national average of 70.4%. Bowel cancer screening coverage for 2024/25 was recorded as66% compared to a national average of 71.8%.

The practice explained that immunisation and cancer screening had historically been a problem due to the high deprivation level and cultural barriers. The practice evidenced that to address this they had put in place a call and re-call process, and continuously shared educational information via email and text. Clinicians were also educating patients in person on the health benefits and offered opportunistic immunisations and screening. The practice also informed us that they were working in partnership with the local primary care network, and had initiated outreach programmes to help educate the local community.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.