Dr Mahmoud Ibrahim Also known as Rossendale Valley Medical Practice

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 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 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 made sure 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 2026 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, 89% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 73%. Also, 87% of respondents said it was easy to contact the practice by telephone (national average 57%) and 61% said it was easy to contact the practice using the website (national average 58%). We saw that a range of appointments were readily available, and we saw examples of patients being seen ad hoc, for example if they had mistakenly arrived for their appointment on the wrong day. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and there was easy access to the service.

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. Examples were given of vulnerable patients being able to register with the service. If a patient did not have a permanent address, they could use the practice address and arrangements were in place for regular contact to be in place, for example if post was received. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. 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.

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.