Dr Chandrakant Patel

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. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this. 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 focussed 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 practice made use of a social prescriber who assisted patients with social needs. We observed posters in the reception area that informed patients about the role of a social prescriber.

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 in two out of five indicators and were just below the national targets for the other three indicators (UK Health Security Agency 2024-2025). The service performed better than the England average in relation to several cancer screening programmes, including screening for breast, bowel and cervical cancer. For example, the national cervical screening uptake target of 80% was met for both age groups (NHS Digital data, 30 June 2024), with uptake at 88.2% for patients aged 25–49 and 80.6% for those aged 50–64.

The practice had a system of patient recalls. Most appointments were booked by reception staff following direct telephone contact with patients. Text messages were used to provide information, reminders and self-booking links for patients who were harder to engage through traditional contact methods.

We saw evidence of quality improvement carried out by the practice. This included a two-cycle audit to assess whether antimicrobial prescribing within the practice aligns with North East London ICB targets for five-day antibiotic courses and to identify opportunities to reduce unnecessary antibiotic exposure. The audit demonstrated improvement between cycles.

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.