Dr Azim Khan Also known as Unity 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

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

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

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present.

Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Where patients were prone to not attending for regular tests, staff used flags to inform the team to use appointments opportunistically to offer additional services such as vaccinations or cervical screening.

Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions.

Our review of patient records showed that medication reviews were always comprehensive, and they had always involved patients and fully considered their needs.

The practice operated a duty doctor system to review pathology results and urgent letters. This ensured they responded quickly to adverse results and invite patients for required assessments.

Staff referred people with additional or social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or wanting access to additional support such as weight management, to a social prescriber.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People were involved in decisions about their care, including what was important and mattered to them, including, end of life care.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance. For example, we reviewed medical records for five people with diabetes. All patients were managed appropriately, except one who required follow up to review their blood pressure. They were immediately contacted by the practice to arrange this.

Staff had access to local and national guidelines which could be accessed easily through online platforms with links to guidance also available through their clinical system. Updates to guidance were shared with all relevant staff at meetings whose minutes were circulated to ensure all staff were aware.

Staff we spoke with told us they held clinics to support people with long term conditions such as asthma, diabetes and chronic heart disease. They told us they used local and national guidelines and kept up to date through training and updates were circulated within the practice.

Clinical audits were conducted to ensure care was delivered in line with legislation and recommended guidelines. For example, the practice carried out audits to identify people who were prescribed over 12 inhalers in the past 12 months, as overuse of inhalers was a strong indicator of poorly controlled asthma. This resulted in increased patient engagement to encourage people to attend reviews, ensuring their treatment remained in line with recommendations.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Staff told us they informed services of additional needs including the need for interpreters and longer appointments when making referrals to other services.

Referrals to other services were audited to ensure that appointments were created for people in a timely manner, for example, when people were referred for suspected cancers.

The practice regularly held multidisciplinary meetings with community nurses, palliative care nurses and specialist nurses, to review vulnerable people’s holistic care and treatment, including people with a cancer diagnosis.

All staff told us they felt the team worked well together at the practice for the benefit of patients. There were monthly protected learning events which were used to share local guidelines which could also be accessed via an online platform called TeamNet which was used by several local GP practices.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The uptake for cervical screening as of 30 June 2024 for 25- to 49-year-olds was 74.3% and, 81.8% for women aged 50- to 64-year-olds. The uptake for women aged 50 to 64 met the national target of 80% but the uptake for 25- to 49-year-olds did not meet this target. Staff told us they put additional notes on patient records to inform colleagues to encourage screening if patients attended appointments for other reasons opportunistically.

National data for the period April 2024 to March 2025showed 4 of the 5 indicators for childhood immunisations had achieved the 90% minimum target however, the uptake of children aged 5 who had received immunisation for measles, mumps and rubella was at 77.8%, which was below the 90% minimum target. There were effective systems in place to follow up people who failed to attend for these appointments. Systems included the lead nurse contacting parents and guardians, informing them of the benefits of immunisations and risks of not having them. There was also a system in place to offer vaccines once children had reached the age to consent to their care and treatment.

From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The practice had effective processes for recording consent within the medical record.

The staff had good knowledge of gaining and assessing consent options allowing the delivery of person-centred care and treatment which was in the person’s best interest. This included young people and people who did not have capacity to consent to care and treatment.

Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. We saw examples where capacity and consent were clearly recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and made and reviewed in line with relevant legislation. We saw effective review processes in place where these decisions were discussed and reviewed with patients.