Archived: Dr Aamer Khan Also known as The Lister 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

The practice had a good understanding of the needs of its local population. There was an integrated approach to patient care, and services worked well together. Complaints were investigated appropriately and learning shared with staff. The practice’s results for the National GP Patient Survey 2025 indicated that patient experience of access was in line with local and national averages. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in people’s experiences and outcomes.

This key question has been rated as Good.

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.

Discussion with leaders showed that they understood the needs of their local population. They demonstrated a good understanding of the practice’s demographics and the specific challenges they faced.

Staff told us that they involved patients in their care and treatment. They told us they did this by having discussions and by providing patients with the support they needed to understand, for example by offering support with any communication needs. This was supported by feedback we received from patients.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, the practice was working with an organisation to try and improve the management of patients with type 2 Diabetes.

Where referrals were made to external services, these were monitored and followed up appropriately. There was an integrated approach to patient care, and services worked well together.

The practice website contained information on, for example, opening times, prescription ordering, patient registration, clinics and services, and providing feedback.

Reasonable adjustments were made at the practice to support communication, including the use of interpretation services. Individual communication needs were noted on the patient’s record where relevant. Leaflets were available in the practice reception area and posters were displayed to provide patients with information.

There was an access to records policy and an information governance policy in place, and staff undertook training on data security.

There was a complaints policy and lead in place. Staff we spoke with understood the complaints process and how to assist patients with any complaints or concerns they may have. The practice had received only 3 formal complaints in the last 12 months. We looked at these complaints and found they were actioned in an appropriate and timely manner, discussed in meetings, and learning shared with staff. Where appropriate, patients were provided with an apology. However, response letters did not always signpost patients to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), should they remain dissatisfied. The practice told us that complaints leaflets were usually sent to patients when the complaint was acknowledged, and that this contained PHSO signposting details. After the assessment the practice showed us a new template letter they had produced that contained this information, in order to ensure this was included in all future complaint responses.

The practice’s patient participation group (PPG) had not been active for some time. The practice told us it had plans in place to relaunch the PPG. We saw that information about the PPG, and details of how to join, were available on the practice website.

The practice’s results for the National GP Patient Survey 2025 indicated that patient experience of access was in line with local and national averages. For example, of 112 respondents, 53% said they found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone compared to the local average of 51% and national average of 53%. In addition, 68% felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last general practice appointment compared to the local average of 69% and national average of 67%.

The practice opening times were Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm. Appointment types included telephone and face to face. Appointments could be booked on the day by telephone, online, or in person where appropriate. The practice offered a number of pre-bookable appointments which could be booked up to 2 weeks in advance. The practice also offered home visits and urgent appointments for patients where appropriate.

Extended access appointments were available to patients on evenings and weekends at practices across Bradford and was run by Bradford Care Alliance.

The practice was based in a community health centre which housed other external services including other GP practices, a dental suite, and a community hospital. The building consisted of 3 floors. The practice was situated on the middle (ground) floor. There was a large car park with disabled parking bays. The practice was wheelchair accessible, and lifts were available throughout the building.

The practice held registers of different patient groups, such as carers and those with a learning disability.

Interpretation services were available for patients who did not have English as a first language. Information leaflets and posters were available around the practice, including easy-read leaflets for those who required it. Information about support services was available on the practice website.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in people’s experiences and outcomes. For example, longer appointment times were offered where needed and home visits were carried out for housebound and vulnerable patients.

Staff received equality and diversity training and learning disability and autism training. Staff were also trained to signpost patients to services most appropriate to their needs.

Health checks, including new patient checks, were offered to patients. Support with using online services was offered to those patients who needed it.

Clinicians understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision making, and had access to policies to support them. Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. The practice had 11 patients on their palliative care register, and these patients were reviewed in monthly multi-disciplinary meetings. Staff 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 saw that DNACPR and ReSPECT forms were completed in line with guidance and with the input of patients, and when necessary, their carers.