Dr Rana Chowdhury

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

Although patients were mostly satisfied with the access to appointments, the practice had yet to fully embed the access to online appointments and improve the information on their website and further work was required to ensure they fully met the needs of their community.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice mostly made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. This was demonstrated by the GP national patient survey carried out from January to March 2026 which had 96 responses, 98% of patients had definitely or to some extent confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to. 94% stated their needs were definitely or to some extent met. The patients’ responses for these categories were above the national and local area national averages.

The practice had 37 carers and had invited them in for a health assessment and 15 had been carried out. 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. They were also planning further events to support carers in 2026.

In addition, the practice had sought to identify veterans to enable them to access specific resources.

The leaders and staff explained how they ensured information was available to as wide an audience as possible. The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standards and staff had completed training. There were arrangements in place for people who need translation services.

The practice submitted unverified data to demonstrate they had referred patients to both the local pharmacist and the social prescriber.

Leaders explained they now met regularly with multi-agency staff to discuss and improve outcomes for people with complex needs. Patients could book appointments by telephone or walking in longer appointments were offered to those with more complex needs. People in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode such as homeless people and Travellers. However, the online appointment system was not yet fully embedded.

The practice did not demonstrate they were actively involved in their local primary network, to improve the local health inequalities.

The practice mostly supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The national GP patient survey carried out from January to March 2025 had 96 responses. This found 98% of patients stated the health care profession to some extent or definitely had the information they needed about them.

The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standards and staff had completed training. There were arrangements in place for people who need translation services. However, the practice website was only available in limited languages and did not contain information about the practices staff. The practice manager explained the website was being updated.

The practice enabled people to raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The practice had a patient participation forum and reviewed GP survey feedback. The practice manager was the lead for complaints and carried out the investigations and completed the responses. We examined a sample of complaints and found all had been managed satisfactorily and in a timely manner. However, some required information about who the patient should contact if they were unhappy with the practice response.

We saw from meeting minutes that complaints were a standing agenda in most meetings. The practice had a complaints procedure last reviewed in 2024.The practice had not carried out their own patient survey or collated friends and family feedback in 2025 to help drive improvements in the quality of care.

National patient survey feedback showed staff ensured patients could mostly access the care, support, and treatment they needed in a timely way. For example, 89% stated their experience of contacting the practice was good overall and 85% stated it was easy to contact the practice on the phone, which were both above the national and local average. However, only 41% stated contact through their website was either fairly or very easy. The practice manager explained they were making improvements on the website, which now enabled patients to access e consult.

The practice was open from 8.00 am to 6.30 pm Monday to Friday, and patients had access to out of hours services in an evening and at weekends. Face to face, online. telephone appointments and home visits were available either as urgent or routine. The practice had recently purchased a medical triage computer software toolkit that supported receptionists to correctly triage and refer patients to other services if appropriate. In addition, 5 reception staff had completed care navigation training. The practice had carried out audits to review the number and reasons for patients not attending booked appointments.

The national GP patient survey for 2025 does not request a response from patients who are specifically experiencing inequalities. The results for the patient’s experience of contacting the practice, whether reception staff were helpful, and contacting by phone, were all above both the national and local averages. However, only 41% stated contact through their website was either fairly or very easy. The practice manager explained at the previous assessment in March 2025 they were in the process of improving the website to improve online access to appointments, at this assessment we found the system had improved but was not yet embedded.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and people from a travelling community. For patients with language or sensory needs, the practice had interpreter access and promoted accessible formats. The practice was accessible for people with physical disabilities.

The patients had access to a social prescriber, health and wellbeing adviser, and physiotherapist.

The practice submitted unverified data from 1 December 2025 to 28 December 2025, which demonstrated the practice had carried out 1,177 appointments with clinical staff, of these 741 were face to face, 288 were telephone appointments and 16 were home visits. The practice manager explained at the time of the assessment they did not review the appointment data, because patients were mostly satisfied with their service.

The practice had identified patients who required end of life care, and the provider told us they met regularly with the district nursing team. However, we reviewed a sample of patients Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions and found although they were made in line with relevant legislation and they were not legible due to an error with photocopying.