During an assessment under our new approach
Date of Assessment: 9 and 11 June 2026. Dr Umadevi Parameswaran is a GP practice and delivers service to 4610 under a contract held with NHS England. [The National General Practice Profiles states that 48.4% are White, 26.1% Black, 12.8% Asian, 9.1% Mixed and 3.6% Mixed. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 4th decile (4 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.
The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.
People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff did not always review assessments taking account of people’s health needs. Care was not always based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent, however they did not always have documentation in place to evidence this. Where patients didn’t have capacity, and staff took decisions about the patient’s care in their best interest, they involved those people who were important to the patient in the decision.
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.
People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.
Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.
We found breaches of regulation 12 in relation to providing effective care. Assessments of the risks to the health and safety of people receiving care or treatment were not being carried out. In particular:
- The needs of patients with long-term conditions were not being assessed or reviewed appropriately.
- Evidence-based guidance was not always being followed when treating patients.
- Where a person lacked capacity, we did not see evidence that a mental capacity assessment had been carried out and its outcome recorded.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.