Dr Amrish Gor Also known as Havergal surgery

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 practice 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, we focused on 2 quality statements relating to the key question Responsive: Equity in access and Equity in experience and 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 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 practice made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The practice opened from 8.00am to 6.30pm from Monday to Friday and offered face to face and telephone appointments. Pre-booked appointments were available on Saturday mornings, between 8:00am and 1:00pm. Same day appointments were provided in relation to babies and children and for patients aged over-75. Double length appointments were booked for care reviews for autistic people and people with a learning disability, dementia, mental health needs, complex conditions. Home visits were provided in appropriate circumstances, according to clinical need.

Appointments outside the standard operating times and at weekends were available at several enhanced access service locations around the borough.

We saw that some of the practice’s results in the recently published 2026 GPPS results were below local and national averages in relation to it being a responsive service.

• For example, 53% of respondents to the survey were positive regarding how easy it was to contact the practice on the phone, compared to local average of 62%. (National average 57%)
• 44% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice using its website, compared to the local average of 57%. (National average 58%)
• 52% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS App, compared with the local average of 54%. (National average 54%)
• 69% of respondents described their experience of contacting their GP practice as good, compared with the local average of 73%. (National average 73%)
• 49% of respondents were offered a choice of time or day when they last tried to make a general practice appointment, compared with the local average of 62%. (National average 57%)
• 72% of respondents felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last general practice appointment, compared with the local average of 68%. (National average 69%)

We noted the GPPS results were not borne out by other patient feedback we saw and we discussed them with staff. The provider and practice manager had been proactive in reviewing the GPPS results and we saw they were to be discussed more fully at the next staff meeting to establish an action plan to improve any below-average results.

We were told more staff had been made available to handle calls, following past patient feedback regarding phone access. Similarly, changes had been made to the practice website allowing patients easier contact with the practice.

Other relevant feedback we reviewed included the Friends and Family Test (FFT), direct feedback we received from patients and the practice’s inhouse patient survey carried out in May 2026. The FFT results with 270 responses were 99% positive. Feedback we received included:

• “I have always found the service to be helpful, friendly and efficient. No complaints from me.”
• “It is easy to contact the surgery either by phone or eForm [via the website] which is helpful.”
• “Very good no complaints.”
• “Very quick answer, immediately appointment! Great.”
• “Absolutely brilliant GP. Responsive, caring, professional, skilled.”
• “Listened to my health problems and gave me appropriate treatment without delay.”
• “If necessary, I get an appointment for the same day to see the doctor.”
• “Excellent communication.”
• “The surgery is very responsive each time I visit (for repeat a prescription or appointment with doctors or nurses).”
• “The administrative team are always approachable, helpful and supportive.”

Of the 54 patients who responded to the practice’s inhouse survey, 29 (54%) described telephone access as excellent; 19 (35%) as very good and 4 (7%) as good.

We saw the practice offered a language phone translation service for patients for whom English is an additional language. The practice website could be viewed in various languages, and staff spoke a range of languages. A British Sign Language practitioner could be booked, and a hearing loop was available for patients with hearing impairment.

The premises were generally accessible to, and had facilities for, people with mobility issues, with staff able to assist when needed.

The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard, having easy read material on a range of topics available for people with a learning disability.

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. All staff members had received Equality and Diversity training, and several had recently completed Reasonable Adjustments training, relating to removing or reducing disadvantages experienced by people with physical or mental disabilities.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and adjusted the service to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff followed processes to ensure people, including those in vulnerable circumstances, such as homeless people and Travellers, could register at the practice.

The practice had both Veteran Friendly and Safe Surgery accreditations. These were in relation to it providing services to ex-military staff who may have specialised healthcare needs, and to supporting vulnerable patients such as migrants in accessing healthcare.

The practice had adopted a care model for managing a wider range of long-term conditions within the North Central London Integrated Care System. This provided patients with a check and test appointment, a health review, test results and care plan, a discussion appointment and a follow up.

Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, including a feedback form on the practice website, the National GP Patient Survey and the Friends and Family Test (FFT). The practice also conducted its own regular patient surveys and acted on feedback submitted.

We received direct feedback from patients, which included the following comments:

• “I have received thoughtful medical attention and advice. My [health issues] and test results was monitored effectively.”
• “There are regular unprompted checkups and a care plan in place.”
• “[GP] is always great. Very calm and thoughtful, listens to your concerns and takes the time to understand.”
• “[GP] is compassionate. [They] listen thoroughly to your issues and tries to find the best outcome for you.”
• “I have found the care offered exemplary from start to finish. This includes dealing with reception staff and all clinical practitioners. All GPs have been thoughtful, thorough and respectful in their handling of my concerns.”
• “I always feel reassured and confident with the treatment plan provided.”
• “I have always felt listened to, and I never feel rushed during appointments, whether they are face-to-face or over the telephone. They take the time to understand concerns and provide excellent care.”
• “[GP] was professional, caring and attentive, and took the time to listen to my concerns and explain everything clearly. I felt well looked after and would be very happy to recommend [them] to others.”

We saw from recent FFT responses, where patients had included comments, they were equally positive about responsive aspects the service.

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.