Dr Amrish Gor Also known as Havergal surgery

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, we focused on 2 quality statements relating to the key question Effective: Supporting people to live healthier lives and Monitoring and improving outcomes.

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 practice supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. It supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health. The practice website had links providing patients with information on healthy living, with guidance relating to diet and exercise; tobacco, alcohol and substance dependence; and mental health issues.

Staff focused on identifying risks to people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and those with caring responsibilities. The practice carried out annual health checks for patients with a learning disability and for those with severe mental illness. The practice performance for both was above the national averages.

The practice had identified 99 people with caring responsibilities (approximately 2% of registered patients) and provided them with appropriate support. People could notify the practice of their caring responsibilities using a form on the practice website. Information for carers was available in the patient waiting area and on the website with signposting to support organisations. Services such as health and wellbeing checks and seasonal vaccinations were offered to carers. We received positive patient feedback regarding the support the practice provided to carers. The practice employed a social prescriber, and another was shared with the other practices.

The practice showed us evidence of its participation in local support programmes being conducted within the PCN, NHS preventative programmes and community health initiatives. These showed a strong commitment to preventative care, population health management and to reducing health inequalities in the local area. The practice operated in an area with high levels or deprivation, measured across seven core domains: income, employment, education, health, crime, housing, and the living environment. The local population was made up of multicultural and multiethnic groups and was frequently transient. The practice engaged with local community organisations in relation to various healthcare issues, such as childhood immunisations and cervical screening programmes. The practice followed the local care model for managing a wide range of long-term conditions. It had accreditations as being Veteran Friendly and a Safe Practice.

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

Published verified data for the year 2024/25 showed the number of new cancer cases treated resulting from an urgent suspected cancer referral was in line with the national average.

We reviewed the most recent data for childhood immunisations published by the UK Health Security Agency (1/4/2024 to 31/3/2025). The practice had exceeded the minimum 95% target for 1 of the 5 childhood immunisation indicators, but not for the remaining 4 indicators, where it achieved between 64% and 73% uptake rates. Low uptake rates are a known issue nationally and particularly in London and we noted the cohorts were very small - between 34 and 56 children – meaning the percentage results were adversely impacted by a few families not engaging with the immunisation programmes.

We discussed the matter with staff who described how the practice proactively identified eligible children through regular records searches and operated a robust recall system using text messages, telephone calls, letters and opportunistic appointments to maximise uptake. We saw from a review of clinical meeting minutes that immunisation performance was regularly monitored. The practice had actively engaged with local groups to promote the importance of immunisations and information was available in the waiting area and on the practice website in various languages to encourage parents to participate in the programmes. We were shown data from 2025/26 and the current year which although unverified indicated a gradual improvement in immunisation uptake had been achieved.

The latest available published data for cervical screening uptake (as of June 2024) was below the Programme Standard which requires 80% of eligible women to have adequate screening test within previous three and a half years. The data showed the practice’s uptake rate for 25 to 49-year-olds was 49.3%, while for 50 to 64-year-olds it was 67%. Again, this is a known trend, particularly in London. Staff showed us the improvement plan the practice had implemented, which included a review of relevant issues. Various factors contributed to the low figures. These included patient demographics, cultural reasons and population mobility. Some patients were likely to have the screening carried out in their countries of origin, without formally telling the practice. In other cases, anxiety over past testing might mean patients being less willing to participate.

The practice had appointed a dedicated cervical screening champion. Monthly records searches to identify patients who were due or overdue for cervical screening and personalised text invitations and reminder messages were sent. Telephone follow-up contact was attempted for patients who had not responded. Booking was encouraged opportunistically during routine and long-term condition appointments. Female sample takers were available for all cervical screening appointments and longer appointments were offered to patients who required additional reassurance or support. Saturday morning appointments were available at the practice for patients who might not be able to attend during the working week. Information leaflets in various languages could be accessed via the practice website and interpreter services could be accessed when required. The practice had engaged with local community groups to help inform patients of the importance of the screening programme. It also publicised the availability of self-testing kits. We received positive direct patient feedback regarding the screening process.

We were shown unverified data which indicated a marked improvement on the figures of 2 years ago and the practice was confident the improvement would be sustained.

The practice showed us 2 clinical audits and other examples of quality improvement activity undertaken over the past 12 months. The clinical audits demonstrated over the course of 2 cycles an improvement in how care in relation to suspected colorectal cancer and for patients who had experienced a stroke or transient ischemic attack was managed.

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.