Drs Thachankary and Krishnan Also known as Stuart Road 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 involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

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.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Feedback from people using the service was mixed around their involvement in assessments of their needs. The 2026 National GP Patient Survey results showed that 90.9% of respondents felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment (local average 91% and national average 92%), only 78% of respondents said that the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them (local and national averages 87%).

Findings from our remote clinical searches showed care was being delivered in line with guidance. The searches identified no patients with a missed diagnosis of diabetes. Monitoring arrangements for patients receiving long-term treatment for hypothyroidism were generally effective, with only a very small number requiring follow-up action. Appropriate recall and reminder processes were in place to support monitoring.

The management of acute asthma was found to be appropriate. All 5 asthma exacerbation reviews we examined were undertaken face-to face which allowed clinicians to directly observe and measure critical physical and technical factors such as inhaler technique.

Reception staff were aware of the needs of their patient population. 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.

The provider 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.

We saw that there were systems were in place to keep staff updated when guidance and care standards changed. For example, changes were highlighted and discussed in monthly clinical reference group meetings whenever updates were made. Staff told us that they were also kept updated through team emails and at general and specific training events. Evidence from our remote clinical searches showed that staff had managed patients such as those with long-term conditions in line with current evidence-based practice and standards.

Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. From provider supplied data we saw that during 2025/26 the practice had undertaken 68 annual learning disability reviews from a total register of 76 eligible patients; the other 8 patients had declined the offer of a review.

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.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.