S H Vaghela & Dr V N Patel Also known as The Old 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 monitored people’s care and treatment and supported them to live healthier lives. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good.

At this assessment, we focused on 2 quality statements relating to the key question Effective: Supporting people to live healthier lives and Monitoring and improving outcomes.

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 Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The practice supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. It supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health. The practice website had links providing patients with information on healthy living, with guidance relating to diet and exercise; tobacco, alcohol and substance dependence; and mental health issues.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and those with caring responsibilities.

The practice had identified 39 people with caring responsibilities (approximately 2.5% of registered patients) and provided them with appropriate support. Information for carers was available in the patient waiting area and via the practice website, with signposting to support organisations. Services such as health and wellbeing checks were offered to carers. A social prescriber was shared with the other practices in the primary care network (PCN).

The practice showed us evidence of its participation in local support programmes being conducted within the PCN, NHS preventative programmes and community health initiatives. These showed a strong commitment to preventative care, population health management and to reducing health inequalities in the local area. They were planned to ensure an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to care delivery, ensuring patients received timely access to appropriate services and holistic support beyond traditional GP consultations.

The practice routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve. It ensured outcomes were positive, consistent and met the expectations of people themselves.

We reviewed the most recent data for childhood immunisations published by the UK Health Security Agency (1/4/2024 to 31/3/2025). The practice had exceeded the minimum 90% target for 1 of the 5 childhood immunisation indicators. For the other 4 indicators it had achieved between 66% and 80% uptake. We noted the cohorts were very small - between 10 and 12 children – meaning the percentage results were adversely impacted by a few families not engaging with the immunisation programme.

The practice was aware of the issue and had already put in place a detailed action plan to improve uptake. We saw the improvement plan had been reviewed and discussed at a staff meeting and made a service priority for 2026 to 2027.

Information and guidance were displayed in the patient waiting area to encourage parents to participate in the programmes. Named staff members had been given responsibility for specific tasks. A records audit was carried out every two weeks, and appropriate information/reminder flags were added to patients’ medical records. This enabled staff to operate a proactive call/recall process and to engage with parents opportunistically during each routine contact. The call/recall process involved an initial phone call to parents and two follow up attempts either by phone or text message, with a reminder letter being sent if there had been no contact. The practice liaised with health visitors and school nursing teams to share information and co-ordinate follow ups.

The latest available published data for cervical screening uptake (as of June 2024) was below the Programme Standard which requires 80% of eligible women to have adequate screening test within previous three and a half years. This is a known trend, particularly in London. The data showed the practice’s uptake rate for 25 to 49-year-olds was 52%, while for 50 to 64-year-olds it was 78%.

Performance data was routinely monitored and reviewed at staff meetings and the practice had put in place a detailed action plan to improve the uptake of the screening. Fortnightly auditing was carried out with flags added to patient records. The call / recall process again involved an initial phone call, two subsequent attempts by phone or text message, and a formal invite letter if no contact had been made. Staff raised the matter opportunistically with patients during routine contacts. Online appointment booking was encouraged and the practice informed us this had been particularly popular with younger patients. The practice had involved local groups and cultural organisations to help address any personal and cultural barriers to screening. It was noted that some patients may be having the screening done in their countries of origin, without informing the practice. Information sheets in languages other than English were available regarding cervical screening and a range of other services provided by the practice.

Screening appointments were offered at the practice premises and at the primary care network (PCN) hub location during the evening and at weekends, to provide flexibility for working age patients. Daytime weekday appointments were also offered at the PCN hub to increase capacity. Longer appointment times are offered where appropriate, particularly for first-time attendees or patients who were anxious over the screening procedure.

The practice provided unverified data which indicated a marked improvement on the figures of 2 years ago and was confident the improvement would be sustained.

The practice showed us 3 examples of clinical audits relating to medicines management that had been conducted. Although the audits involved relatively few patients, and compliance was generally high, learning points had been identified and actions implemented to improve care provision.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.