Dr Kumudini Khare Also known as Dr Khare Medical Practice

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 that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating changed to 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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Our review of clinical records showed people were mostly supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

Feedback from people who used the service as noted in the National GP survey results and the Friends and Family Test respondents (sampled for May and June 2025) was overwhelmingly positive. People felt the GP took the time to listen to them and they were not rushed during appointments. In addition, people shared examples of individualised personal care they had received.

Extended appointments were available for those who needed them, and the service accommodated people had specific needs around where they waited for appointments and when they were seen.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, the local Primary Care Network (PCN). The PCN provided a range of appointments in addition to the ‘on day’ service including home visiting service and some extended hours appointments at weekends. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by patients were added to the patients records in order that staff could ensure the service met their needs and the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

Information for people using the service was available, but the service had limited space available to them in order to do this on display boards within the waiting room. However, health promotion leaflets were available. For example, lifestyle advice and screening programmes.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. Information on how to escalate concerns was shared with people in the service response and in the complaints leaflet. It was difficult to ascertain if there was learning from complaints as there had been none recorded in the last 12-month period. Leaders told us verbal complaints were dealt with either immediately or the next day, so there were no verbal complaint records available to review. Feedback provided onsite was that there were examples within their Friends and Family Tests respondents that could be seen as complaints. Feedback was provided on the role and benefit of trend analysis for any verbal complaints.

The service routinely asked people to complete Friends and Family Test feedback forms and reviewed the feedback for any trends or themes. Changes made as a result of feedback included a cloud-based telephony service and call back options.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone, and a range of different appointment types were available.

The service offered urgent on the day, within the next few days and within 14 days appointments. The service provided extended hours appointments two evenings a week. The service could book on the day in hours appointments for people at the enhanced access service operated by the local primacy care network. These were offered across the whole of Tamworth (The New Mercian GP Network), including evening and weekend appointments. All practices across Tamworth participate in this extended access. Additionally, there was an online digital service available on Sunday mornings where appointments could be offered with a GP via the Q Doctor App.

National GP Patient Survey data and feedback received from people was positive about their experience of contacting the service and accessing appointments. Indicators showed 75% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting the practice. In addition, 58% of respondents were positive about how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone, slightly higher than the national average of 53%.

Consulting and treatment rooms were on the ground floor and there was level entry to the building with electronic doors. Facilities for disabled people included a disabled toilet and a disabled parking space. Baby changing facilities were available within the health centre building.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not have access to the internet.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People who required additional care and support were discussed at arranged multi-disciplinary team meetings. Any unexpected deaths were discussed during practice meetings.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.