Dr P Kumar & Partners Also known as Chessington Park 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, 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 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 focused on identifying risks to people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and those with caring responsibilities. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

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

The service met national targets for the uptake of childhood immunisations of 90% minimum in 2 out of 5 indicators (the percentage of children aged 1 who have completed a primary course of immunisation for Diphtheria, Tetanus, Polio, Pertussis, Haemophilus influenza type b (Hib), Hepatitis B (Hep B) and the percentage of children aged 2 who have received immunisation for measles, mumps and rubella). The service was marginally below national targets for the uptake of childhood immunisations in 3 out of 5 indicators (the percentage of children aged 5 who have received immunisation for measles, mumps and rubella; the percentage of children aged 2 who have received their immunisation for Haemophilus influenza type b (Hib) and Meningitis C (MenC); and the percentage of children aged 2 who have received their booster immunisation for Pneumococcal infection). The practice advised that they provide advice and educate parents of the benefits of vaccination, as well as offering to split the combined immunisations if they so wished. The service performed better than the England average of 53.9% in relation to the number of new cancer cases treated resulting from an urgent suspected cancer referral (68.9%); however, did not achieve the 80% minimum target for cervical screening in either the 25-49 year old eligible population group or the 50-64 year old eligible population group, achieving 75.7% and 74.5% respectively. The practice stated that they will opportunistically discuss cervical screening if eligible patients are attending for an alternative reason, and will provide advice and education about what they would expect during the screening procedure to help put their mind at ease.

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.