Dr Umadevi Parameswaran Also known as Ashburton Park 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 that the service met people’s needs, and that 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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. Staff told us that they always find a way to involve a patient, next of kin or their carer. We saw this reflected in clinical notes and the DNACPR forms we reviewed. We saw discussions with patients were recorded appropriately and treatment options discussed.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, a cancer hospital asked them to work with them to promote prostate cancer in patient populations that had low take up for screening. As a result, the GP attended a local mosque to promote the update of the screening programme.

The practice had tailored its services to meet the needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups including a learning disabilities group to increase awareness of a learning disabilities carnival.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages.

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. The website could be translated into multiple languages. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. The practice manager and lead GP led on responding and investigating complaints. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made because of patient feedback, including complaints. We reviewed some of the complaints on the register and saw they had been responded to appropriately.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.

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

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. The GP gave example of how they supported patients. This included assisting people whose first language was not English to access culturally specific services.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. They allowed these patients to use the practice address as a point of contact so they could access secondary and community service such as mental health and hospital. They also allowed patients to check emails which led to them helping patients to stay in contact with relatives and secure employment.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.