Dr Teotia and partners Also known as Green Lane 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 staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them with advice and support. 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.

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.

Staff supported people to manage their health and wellbeing. They focused on prevention and early intervention to help reduce future care needs. Staff identified health risks such as end-of-life needs, frailty and carer responsibilities, and they supported national health priorities, including stopping smoking and obesity reduction. Leaders reported that the local Primary Care Network (PCN) was working across Barking and Dagenham communities to reduce health inequalities and promote preventative healthcare.

Staff would refer patients to the PCN social prescriber who contacted patients with complex needs or who were vulnerable to ensure their needs were being met. Staff told us patients had access to a community mental health specialist nurse. Data from the 2026 National GP patient survey showed people were informed about their care and treatment and what the next steps would be.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Most people who used the service felt they could make an informed decision about their care and treatment because they had been provided with the information they needed to support them to do so. The 2026 National GP Patient Survey showed that 85% of respondents felt the healthcare professional had the information needed during their last appointment, compared with 91% locally and 92% nationally. Additionally, 83% felt involved as much as they wanted in decisions about their care and treatment, comparable to the local average (89%) but below the national average (92%).

The provider shared evidence of quality improvement activities which they had carried out to improve outcomes for patients. For example, the provider had a rolling programme of audits to assess compliance with monitoring and safe prescribing guidelines, for example safeguarding children not brought to appointments, cancer care, management of patients with kidney disease, polypharmacy audits and patients prescribed DMARDS (a group of prescription medicines used to treat autoimmune and inflammatory conditions), to ensure good outcomes for patients. Findings from audits were shared with staff to help identify further areas for improvement.

The service had met the WHO based national target of 95% for 5 childhood immunisation uptake indicators (01 April 2024 to 31 March 2025). The service provided evidence of actions taken to improve the uptake of childhood immunisations. This included regularly running searches and implementing a call and recall log which also recorded when a child was not brought to an immunisation appointment. We saw unverified QOF data which showed improvements in immunisation achievement over the last 12 months.

The service told us the PCN provided cervical screening clinics at the local extended access hub. The service had a recall system and sent texts to patients with information about cervical screening and a self-booking link. Data we reviewed showed the service performed lower than the England average in the uptake of cervical screening among younger patients (aged 25 to 49 years) at 58.2% and in the uptake of cervical screening in the patient cohort (aged 50 to 65 years) at 66.7%. However, the service provided unverified data to demonstrate that achievement against the national targets had significantly improved to 68% and 83% for these cohorts.

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.