Dr Iqbal and Partners Also known as Abernethy House 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 the service met people’s needs, and staff treated people equally and without discrimination. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains 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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service performed better than the national averages in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. This showed people could access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the service’s website. For example, 72% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 70%. In response to feedback from people who used the service, staff had made changes to improve access. This included providing call backs for patients, although some feedback stated that the practice needed to be careful how this was managed. Currently a call back could be received at any point in the day and feedback we saw suggested that individual circumstances should be taken into account as it may not always be convenient for a patient to wait all day. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance to ensure ease of access to the service.

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

Feedback provided by people using the service to the provider through the Friends and Family Test and the GP patient survey was generally positive. The practice reviewed at these results on a monthly basis within practice meetings and look at ways to improve service following any negative comments. The main areas for patients’ concerns was access to services through the telephone system which was being addressed by the practice and the installation of the online consultation system. Feedback was reviewed on a regular basis with action taken on poor feedback. For example, some patients reported they felt rushed during nurse consultations and there was not always clarity over the procedure being caried out. The practice was looking at ways to address this to improve patient experience including giving the nurse longer consultations for procedures required more time. This had recently started and the impact of this was still to be measured. The Patient Participation Group (PPG) worked with patients to gather insight into their experience for the practice to improve. The group stated that staff at the practice were open to their comments and they were discussed within meetings. For example, the feedback provided by the PPG was part of the response leading to the change in the booking system to an online consultation system. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experiences and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experiences and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.