Archived: Dr Aamer Khan Also known as The Lister 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

Staff had access to training and learning opportunities to support them in their role. The practice engaged with other services and supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing. Despite some efforts from the practice, cervical screening and child immunisations uptake rates were below national targets. Processes were in place to support patients to make informed decisions about their future, and to review patients at the end of their lives.

This key question has been rated as Good.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There were 474 patients on the practice’s asthma register, of which 35 had been prescribed 2 or more courses of rescue steroids. We reviewed records for 4 of these patients and found that patients were not always provided with steroid cards or adequately followed up in an appropriate timescale following acute exacerbation of asthma, although patients were usually safety netted and received annual reviews. After the assessment the practice told us it had contacted patients for review where required, as well as developing a steroid card policy.

There were 9 patients diagnosed with chronic kidney disease stages 4 or 5. We reviewed records for 2 of these patients and found that where monitoring was overdue due to non-attendance, patient management plans had been put in place.

There were 104 patients diagnosed with hypothyroidism, 2 of which had not had the required monitoring in the last 18 months. After the assessment the practice told us it had taken action to follow up these patients.

There were 127 patients registered with diabetes and with a latest HbA1c of more than 74mmol/l. We reviewed records for 4 of these patients and found that all 4 had been contacted or had received a diabetic medication review since their latest HbA1c result, but had not all received an annual review in the last 12 months. It was however noted that some patients generally had poor compliance with medications and with requests to attend for monitoring appointments.

The practice had a palliative care register with 11 patients, and these patients were reviewed in monthly multidisciplinary meetings.

Patients’ accessibility and communication needs were considered, and they were supported accordingly, for example through the use of interpretation and translation services. Staff could refer patients with specific needs, such as those experiencing poor mental health, to social prescribers and other services.

Clinical staff told us they followed best practice guidance when carrying out their work. They told us they had access to training and learning opportunities and were supported with their professional development. Staff provided examples of where they had attending training courses and used protected time to keep up to date with developments in their field of work.

We saw examples of clinical audits incorporating evidence-based guidelines, for example National Institute for Health and Care (NICE) guidelines.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver patient’s care, treatment, and support. The practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care. The practice told us how it managed information sharing with other providers, including out of hours team. There were monthly multi-disciplinary meetings at the practice, where members of external services, such as health visitors, often attended or shared feedback. There was continued engagement with other members of the primary care network.

The practice supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Patients were supported to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported initiatives to improve population health. This included referral to social prescribers and for mental health support, as well as encouraging patients to attend for cancer screening.

There were processes in place to invite patients for relevant health checks. In the last 12 months 96 NHS health checks had been completed. There were also systems in place to identify patients in need of extra support, for example those with a learning disability. The practice had 47 patients on their learning disability register, and 41 had received a health check in the last 12 months. Information to support patients was available around the practice and on the practice website. For example, there was a cancer awareness promotional board displayed in the waiting area which included information such as symptoms to look out for, screening services available, advise on how to book, and signposting to external services. We were told that this display was updated monthly.

The GP Patient Survey for 2025 showed that 66% of patients felt they had enough support from local services or organisations to manage their long-term conditions or illnesses, compared to the national average of 69%.

The practice’s cervical screening uptake rate in June 2024 was 61% for patients aged 25 to 49 years old, and 78% for patients aged 50 to 64 years old, which were both below the 80% national target. More recent (March 2025) data from the practice indicated achievements of 92% for patients aged 25 to 49 years old, and 96% for patients aged 50 to 64 years old, however this data was unverified.

Data from March 2024 showed that the practice had not met the 90% minimum uptake rate for all 5 routine childhood vaccinations indicators, and that 1 out of 5 of these was below 80%.

The practice told us of the steps it took to encourage patients to attend for cervical screening and childhood immunisations, which included phone call follow-ups of non-attenders, discussion and education, and carrying out opportunistic testing. The practice also had a cancer champion within the reception team, to support and encourage screening uptake. In addition, the practice held yearly cancer events, often alongside another practice situated in the same building. For example, there was a cancer awareness day in October 2024 targeting non-responder patients for cancer screening services, a brain cancer awareness day in February 2025, and a bowel cancer awareness day in May 2025. Feedback collated by the practice from patients attending these events showed that most patients found the events to be informative, and we saw that some patients had made the decision to take part in screening as a result of these events. Furthermore, the practice had taken part in the Cancer Behavioural Science Programme, to improve and streamline communications to patients in respect of cervical screening.

Appropriate registers were held to ensure effective monitoring of specific groups such as those receiving palliative care.

Staff told us how they dealt with consent and how they helped patients make decisions about their care, including the use of relevant guidelines and recording consent.

There was a consent policy in place which covered areas such as capacity and consent processes for children. Processes were in place to support patients to make informed decisions about their future, and to review patients at the end of their lives. Staff also told us how they worked with patients, and their carers, to support them to understand their options regarding Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions. We reviewed 2 patient records and saw that DNACPR and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms were completed in line with guidance and with the input of patients, and when necessary, their carers.