Drs Patel and Partner Also known as Vassall Medical Centre

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.

At our last inspection we rated this key question as good. At this inspection, the rating remains good.

Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this. However, we found a breach of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. For example, following a review of patient records we identified patients who may have had a missed diagnosis of diabetes and a number of patients who had been prescribed medicines contrary to Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) notifications.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

In most cases the service made sure people’s care and treatment were effective, however they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. The National Patient Survey results demonstrated that out of 77 responses, 90% of people felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment which was in line with local averages and national averages. The provider had systems in place to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions; however, this was not always effective. Following a review of patient records we found that there were 17 patients who may have a missed diagnosis of diabetes. During the assessment leaders told us that the identified patients would be contacted to address these omissions.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Systems were in place to keep staff up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation; however, they were not always effective. For example, we undertook a review of patient records at the service and found that guidelines were being followed in most cases, however not all patients who were prescribed high-risk medicines had received the required monitoring. Some patients had also been prescribed medicines contrary to Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) notifications. For example, a safety alert from August 2012 stated that simvastatin at doses over 40mg should not be prescribed with amlodipine due to a risk of severe muscle damage. We found 2 patients who were prescribed this, with both having medicines dispensed in 2025.

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 the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. Regular team meetings were held so that information could be shared, and staff were given protected time to complete training. The practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

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 patients’ health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, patients at risk of developing a long-term condition and those with caring responsibilities. The service had an in-house social prescriber who provided patients with support to improve their health and wellbeing. The PPG ran initiatives to improve the wellbeing of patients. This included a ‘Carers' Day’ to raise awareness of the support available to carers.

The service 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 had performed below national targets for cervical screening and childhood immunisations. Leaders told us that they had a designated member of staff who monitored the uptake of immunisations. The service had also joined a pilot to send birthday card reminders to parents of children who were due a vaccination. Although this did not result in an increase in uptake, the service did receive contact from parents wishing to decline. In response the Practice Nurse contacted those who declined to establish a reason and to provide further information and education where appropriate. Leaders also told us that they were actively recalling patients who were eligible for cervical screening, and clinical staff also raised the matter with patients during unrelated appointments. However, the service continued to experience a high number of missed appointments.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff we spoke to demonstrated that they understood and applied legislation relating to consent and had completed Mental Capacity Act training. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. We found that do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.