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

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

Key question commentary

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same. We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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.

Feedback from people who used the service was positive and during long-term condition reviews; people felt staff understood their individual needs. People, and where appropriate, family members and carers were involved in care and treatment decisions.

The practice had arrangements in place to support person-centred care. For example, people who were due a long-term condition review could book their appointment online or by telephone on a date and time to suit them.Clinical staff told us during consultations they discussed relevant information, listened to people’s concerns and expectations, identified people’s needs and preferences and agreed a plan of care together which suited the person.

The practice complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, which included avoiding discrimination and having regard for the needs of people with different protected characteristics.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with local community healthcare providers.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

Staff told us it would be highlighted on the person’s record if they had any communication or accessibility needs. Some staff gave examples of information they had provided to people to aid their understanding of care and treatment options, for example easy read, translated and large print information.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. During the assessment, leaders agreed to update the complaints log to include the changes that had been implemented and embedded.

Complaints information was available in the practice and on the practice website.We reviewed a sample of complaints and found they had been managed in line with the practice’s policy. Complaints had been acknowledged, investigated in a timely way, people were given an apology and actions taken in response were shared. People were advised of the contact details of the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman, if they wanted to escalate their complaint.

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

We reviewed the National GP Patient Survey data, published in July 2025. For the access indicators, experience of contacting your GP practice was in line with the England average and contacting your GP practice by phone, showed a positive statistical variation compared with the England average.

Appointments were available on 5 weekdays, between 8am to 6:30pm. Extended hours appointments were available at a nearby GP practice.The practice was responsive to the needs of people who were too ill or physically incapable of travelling to the practice and offered home visits. Staff told us people with the most urgent needs had their care and treatment prioritised. The practice had a duty clinician available every day for advice and support, as necessary.

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

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. 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, 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 experience 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 had no access to the internet.

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. This information was shared with other services when necessary.

Staff regularly discussed patients who were at the end of their life with other professionals to ensure care was delivered in the best possible way to meet each patient’s needs.