Dr Azim Khan Also known as Unity Surgery

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating has remained the same.

This service scored 80 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy. National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. The GP National Survey Data for 2025 showed that 90.3% of people felt that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at listening to them. This was above the national average of 86.9%. 95.6% of people stated that during their last appointment they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to- this was above the national average of 92.5%.

The PPG felt all staff at the practice were approachable and listened to and valued their views. The lead GP attended meetings regularly to discuss input from the PPG.

We spoke with 4 patients during our assessment. Feedback regarding the reception team and clinical staff was highly positive. All patients we spoke with told us staff were approachable, kind and patient. We saw patients could contact the practice in a variety of ways, via telephone, online and in person.

All staff we spoke with understood Gillick competency (medical law to determine if a child under sixteen years of age can consent to their own medical treatment), and there was a process to ensure young adults had control over their own privacy and the amount of parental involvement in managing their care and support.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Patient communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care. Staff had access to interpreters and language line when required.

We saw evidence of support tools and advice to aid people’s independence and support. For example, the healthcare assistant saw housebound people when district nurses did not have capacity, providing wound checks, flu vaccinations, B12 injections and phlebotomy.

People identified as having pre-diabetes were referred to prevention services, and their records were audited to ensure they were receiving care in line with recommended guidelines.

At the time of our assessment, a GP was completing a course in joint injections to support people with pain management, alongside other relevant therapies.

The service held a register of carers and appointed a dedicated carers’ champion who supported this group of people. Carers were signposted to support groups, and all staff were aware of the carer’s champion role.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

There was a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams. The service had daily clinical triage by a duty doctor who reviewed clinical requests submitted online. There was always a clinician on site. Staff told us they accommodated children and elderly people on the same day as they were at higher risk of deterioration.

The practice had a panic button system in place where staff could request immediate support in the case of emergencies. All staff were aware of the protocols in place to responding to emergencies. They had also received training in identifying sepsis symptoms.

GP out of hours services had access to people’s summary care records to enable them to assess people effectively when their GP practice was closed.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

We spoke with 6 staff members as part of our assessment. All staff we spoke with told us they felt valued by leaders. They had access to management whenever they needed, and they had an open-door policy.

Staff told us they had a positive work-life balance due to the flexible work arrangements offered. They told us they were treated fairly and respectfully; they felt seniors did not look down on junior staff.

Leaders had taken steps to recognise and meet the wellbeing needs of staff, which included the necessary resources and facilities for safe working, such as regular breaks and rest areas.

Staff reported being supported if they were struggling at work with workplace adjustments made to suit their needs.

The practice planned regular PLT days where they shared learning and discussed governance and clinical practice.