Drs Patel and Partner Also known as Vassall Medical Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. At our last inspection, we rated this key question as good. At this inspection, 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 service made sure people were at the center of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. For example, the service identified a low uptake in bowel cancer screening in relation to patients from minority ethnic communities and implemented a plan to improve results. We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We found that the service monitored patient feedback and had identified that patients had asked for more face-to-face appointments. In response the service took steps to raise awareness about the triage process and how appointments were allocated. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. However, we noted that details of the Parliamentary and Healthcare Ombudsman were missing from the complaint responses we reviewed.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Feedback provided by people using the service was mostly positive. The result of the National GP patient survey showed that the service was performing above or close to national averages in this area. For example, 62% of patients were offered a choice of time or day when they last tried to make a general practice appointment (National Average 53%), 70% of patients felt that it was easy to contact the service by telephone (National Average 50%), and 80% were satisfied with their overall experience of contacting the practice (National Average 67%). We also reviewed the information available on NHS.uk website. Since September 2023 5 patients posted reviews. Four comments were positive about their experience, while one patient experienced difficulty in getting through to the service on the phone. The results for the 2025 survey were published following the inspection, and patient satisfaction in respect of access to appointments has remained above or close to the national average.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Feedback provided by people using the service was mostly positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.