Dr Rana Chowdhury

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

The practice had responded to the concerns found at the previous assessment in March 2025, the systems for assessing needs, delivering evidenced based guidelines and the management of patient long term health conditions had improved.

This service scored 63 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The GP survey carried out from January to March 2025, which had 96 responses, found over 96% of patients stated the doctors treated them with care and concern, 98% had confidence in the health care professional, and 94% stated their needs were met.

At this assessment, a sample of patient clinical record searches were undertaken by a CQC GP specialist advisor. These searches were visible to the practice.We reviewed both asthma patients and we identified 343 patients: of these, 3 had been prescribed 2 or more courses of rescue steroids. A review of these records found all patients were reviewed appropriately following asthma exacerbations.

Our search found there was no missed diagnosis of kidney diseases and diabetes. For the monitoring of patients with hypothyroidism, out of 123 patients, 2 had not had monitoring for over 18 months. A review of the 2 patients found all required blood tests had been appropriately identified and arranged by the practice.

We also reviewed a sample of 5 patient consultation records of the advanced nurse practitioner and found the documentation to be satisfactory.

However, during our assessment we were made aware of a significant event where a member of the clinical team did not follow protocol and ensure a high-risk patient received immediate follow up. This was reviewed by the practice as a significant event.

At the previous assessment in March 2025, although we found improvements in the patient records and staff following evidence-based guidelines, we also found some areas where best practice could have been improved. For example, reasons for referrals were not always fully documented.

At this assessment we reviewed 16 referrals and found them to be satisfactorily completed. A review of 4 mental health care plans found all were appropriate.

The clinical and clinical governance meetings were held every four weeks and demonstrated brief discussions of evidenced based care and treatment. The clinicians explained that they had direct access to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance and local guidance.

In the last six months the practice had two significant events where the GPs had not followed evidenced based guidelines, in regard to safeguarding and urgent follow up.

The practice had a small staff team, who stated they worked well together.

At our previous assessment, we found the provider had not always worked well across teams and services to plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. At this assessment, we found the provider now attended multi-disciplinary meetings regarding the care home residents they treated and met with the district nurse face to face every 2 months. In addition, they attended a 3-monthly safeguarding forum.

At this assessment, there were some improvements to systems for assessment and treatment of patients with more complex needs. We were told the advanced nurse practitioner was completing the universal care plans for the patients in the residential home with complex needs to ensure they had continuity of care. At the time of the assessment, they had completed 24 universal care plans.

The practice supported a residential care home; we spoke with staff who stated the lead GP responded promptly to their needs and visited weekly.

The practice supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Staff said patients had access to social prescribers, health and wellbeing coaches, and dieticians.

The practice carried out new patient registration checks but did not offer adult health assessments.

The practice had identified 37 carers and had invited them in for a health assessment and 15 patients had agreed to a health assessment. Following the previous assessment in March 2025, the practice had reached out to carers in December 2025 and arranged a coffee and cake event. Eight carers attended were provided with advice and referred to the social prescriber and dietitian. The staff also explained they were also planning further awareness events to support people in 2026.

The staff had completed a range of brief clinical and system audits to ensure they were providing safe care. For example, the clinical staff had regular reviews of the consultation records and referrals. Patients who did not attend or were not brought into appointments, referral safety netting, and blood test follow ups.

The practice was continuing to review and improve their recall of long-term health conditions and were seeking help from the local integrated care team. The Local Improvement Scheme (LIS) unverified data in January 2026 demonstrated they had reached 51% for diabetes 8 Care Processes completed, 79% for blood pressure control, 76% for HbA1c control and 81% for cardiovascular disease (CVD) targets. For annual asthma reviews the practice had completed 48% and 64% for chronic obstructive pulmonary airways disease.

The practice nurse was responsible for the recall of patients for childhood vaccinations and cervical screening. From the 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025, the practice had achieved over 90% take up in four of the five routine childhood vaccinations. However, the uptake of cervical screening for patients aged 25 to 49 years was 66% and below the national target of 80%.

At the date of the assessment, the practice submitted unverified data to show they had completed 18 out of 35 mental health and 13 out of 14 learning disability care plans.

The practice told people about their rights around consent. Most clinicians understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making. We saw that consent was documented. Clinicians supported patients to make decisions.

We reviewed a sample of patients Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions and found although they were made in line with relevant legislation, they were not legible due to an error with photocopying. Following the site visit the practice submitted a standard operating policy for DNACPR which included ensuring the information was legible.