Dr AM Deshpande & Dr P Gurjar Practice Also known as Dr A Deshpande & Partners

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

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same. We looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This key question has been rated as good. We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support.

People were involved in assessments of their needs, and care and treatment was delivered in line with current legislation, standards and evidence-based guidance supported by clear pathways and tools. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and treatment. Staff, teams and services worked together to improve people’s outcomes and support people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Where people did not have capacity, staff involved people who were important to them and took decisions in people’s best interests. Staff supported people to live healthy lives and where possible, reduce their future need for care and support.

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.

People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident staff understood their individual needs. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. 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. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

The practice had systems to identify and prioritise care and treatment for people who were vulnerable. For example, all people with a learning disability had been invited for a learning disability health check and 100% of these people had received a learning disability health check in the previous 12 months. Reasonable adjustments were in place to support people’s attendance. Arrangements were in place to invite and complete NHS health checks for people who were eligible, and health checks for people aged over 75 years were also available.

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.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was generally provided in line with current guidance.

Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. People were recalled for reviews and follow up arrangements were in place for people who did not respond to invitations. People with multiple long-term conditions were reviewed during 1 longer appointment. People gave positive feedback in relation to the clinical care and treatment they received.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. The practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

There were arrangements in place for staff from this practice and other nearby practices to work across sites so they could respond to the needs of people in a flexible way.

Partner agencies we received feedback from spoke positively about how the service worked together with them.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, people at risk of developing a long-term condition and those with caring responsibilities. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, which including stopping smoking and tackling obesity. NHS health checks were offered to people aged 40 to 74 years. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber, employed by the primary care network, (PCN). Staff gave examples of where people had been positively supported to live healthier lives, which included healthy eating and weight management.

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

The practice met national targets for most screening and immunisations, although the published take-up for cervical screening for 2024 was just below the expected results. The number of new cancer cases treated resulting from an urgent suspected cancer referral was also below the expected results. The practice was aware of this and had audited the results and put an improvement plan in place.

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.

Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.

Evidence we saw showed that not all staff had completed training on consent and the Mental Capacity Act, but staff we spoke to told us that this training had been completed and the oversight tool required updating.