Prince Avenue Surgery Also known as Dr Sooriakumaran & Dr Santhakumar

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 in 2015, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly monitored people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

We found that patients reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided to improve care quality were regularly assessed, and care and treatment were delivered in line with current legislation and evidence-based guidelines. The service had a programme of quality improvement activity and routinely.

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, and communication needs with them.

The service maintained up-to-date patient assessments and ensured staff understood individuals’ current health and care needs. Vulnerable patients were prioritised, with annual health checks offered to those with learning disabilities, caring responsibilities and other vulnerable groups of people. Reasonable adjustments were made to support attendance.

Registers were maintained enabling the practice staff to identify people who may require additional support and to collaborate with a social prescriber to connect them to local community support.

Reception staff used digital flags to highlight specific needs, such as interpreter support or extended appointments. Staff referred individuals with social challenges, such as isolation or housing issues, to the social prescriber.

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 provided in line with current guidance.

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 all necessary information, and systems enabled safe information sharing both internally and with external agencies.

Regular liaison with community teams, including health visitors and mental health practitioners, supported coordinated care. Referrals to specialist services were well documented, included all required details, and were actively monitored to avoid delays.

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 patients’ health, including those approaching end of life, patients at risk of developing a long-term condition and those with caring responsibilities. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

The practice routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service was situated in an area where vaccine hesitancy was notably high among some communities, and the uptake of screening opportunities was lower than the national average. Between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025, the service did not achieve the WHO national target of 95% for 4 of the 5 key childhood immunisation indicators. Uptake ranged from a high of 90% to a low of 77.8%.

Similarly, the national targets of 80% for cervical screening uptake (based on NHS Digital data dated 30 June 2024) for the eligible population aged 25- to 49-year-olds and 50 to 64 years old were not met. Uptake was 72.4% and 75% respectively.

In response to this, the leadership team acknowledged these shortfalls and implemented a targeted action plan. This involved following up with patients who missed appointments and contacting those with vaccine hesitancy to address their concerns. Administrative staff sent text messages containing information to encourage participation. We saw unverified data, which showed that following these ongoing interventions, uptake was improving.

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.

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

Relevant clinical staff had completed training on the Mental Capacity Act.