Dr Azim Khan Also known as Unity 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

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 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 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.

The service recognised the diverse population needs and fully understood their service’s demographic and language barriers. For example, translators were utilised to assist with telephone consultations and in person appointment, where required.

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

The service reached out to people with learning disabilities and their carers and encouraged them to accept an invite for a learning disability health check.

National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment. The survey results showed 92.5% of respondents stated that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment, compared to the national average of 91.2%. Results also showed that 70.7% of respondents to the GP Patient Survey responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice on the phone, compared to the national average of 52.9%.

The PPG felt the practice involved them in decisions and were responsive to their suggestions.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff told us leaflets around conditions and medications could be translated to other languages and their website was also available in different languages.

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

A range of information on aspect of health for all ages and local support groups were available in the practice and via the practice website and notice board displays. We saw notice boards with information on carers and young carers, anxiety support group, talking therapies services, NHS App, research board and a board promoting general health and wellbeing.

Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. Patients we spoke with knew how to access their records.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was shared with all staff. We saw changes made to improve safety following complaints, for example, the management of tasks sent through the clinical system was changed to ensure all outstanding tasks were clearly identified for follow up. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The service had an active patient participation group in place that met regularly, who were involved in displays around the practice. A PPG member told us the lead GP had recently attended a meeting and working with the practice felt like a “real collaboration”. They felt all staff knew their roles, were respectful and fond of the practice.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Patients could access appointments through an online system, and a robust triage system was in place through the telephone system. Feedback from patients was positive about getting through on the telephones and accessing appointments.

The latest National GP Survey data showed 79.4% of people responded positively about their overall experience of contacting the GP practice, which was above the national average of 69.6%. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp had been fitted to the entrance.

The practice offered longer appointments to those with learning disabilities or with additional communication needs. People who required routine appointments outside of the usual working hours had access to evening appointments. Housebound people were offered home visits.

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. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. This included extended hours appointments for workers, appointments at quiet times for vulnerable people and extended appointment times for complex cases.

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. Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. There was a detailed review process in place to ensure people were able to review decisions they had made. We found a person’s capacity to make decisions was reviewed before decision making and where appropriate family members and carers were involved in decision making. This information was shared with other services when necessary. The practice had started printing RESPECT forms onto purple paper to make it easier to find in a person home.