Dr Rabiatov Dabo

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 involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s

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.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Feedback from people using the service was positive. We reviewed feedback from patients, and they commented that staff communicated information well and that they were involved in decisions. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs.

Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present.

Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. Our review of clinical records confirmed this.

The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. For example, they offered blood tests for new patients so they could identify and assess their chances of developing long-term conditions. They also carried out screening for diabetes for patients from ethnic groups with a higher prevalence of the condition. Over 40 checks were also offered to eligible patients to identify any health problems. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. The practice was signed up to email alerts to receive updates on legislation and guidance such as from NHS England. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. The practice worked with other services such as community teams and out of hours, to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

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.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to patients’ health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, patients at risk of developing a long-term condition and those with caring responsibilities. New patient checks were completed for all adults, children born abroad and looked after children. This was to enable them to identify any vulnerability or potential long-term condition developing.

Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity. The initiatives included running a weight management programme at the practice, referring patients to exercise programmes and also referring patients to diabetes prevention schemes.

To help people manage their wellbeing and independence, the practice ran a gardening project. They employed a gardener to deliver free classes for patient using the practice garden. This helped patients to improve their mental health and reduce isolation. They found that patients reported back that the scheme was valued and contributed to them living healthier lives.

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

The practice was not meeting all the national targets for screening and immunisations. The GP we spoke with explained that the practice had put processes in place to mitigate this. This included having a dedicated member of staff who maintained a spreadsheet of all babies born so that they have oversight of when immunisations were due. A protocol was in place to reduce missed vaccination appointments, which included a reminder call from reception staff on the day of the appointment and flexibility from clinicians if a patient arrived late. If they are late, they are still seen and never turned away.

They also invited local nurseries to attend the surgery with children so that they can become familiar with the practice, meet the doctors to try and reduce some of the fear and vaccine hesitancy.

They were also part of a new PCN initiative where they will be working with local outreach organisations to liaise with groups where improvements can be made to increase vaccine uptake

From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Staff we spoke with demonstrated appropriate knowledge of consent and capacity. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded in the records we reviewed. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.