Dr A K & S Shah Also known as Goodmayes 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

At our previous assessment in October 2023, we rated this key question requires improvement. This was because patients with a potential missed diagnosis of diabetes had not received care in line with best practice guidance and they were below the national targets for the uptake of childhood immunisation and cervical screening. At this assessment we have rated this key question good, because we found the practice had responded and improvements had been made to the care of patients with diabetes and the uptake of childhood immunisations and cervical screening had improved.

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 practice made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care needs with them.

The practice had systems and processes in place to identify people’s needs and preferences during the registration process. As part of the assessment a number of set clinical record searches were undertaken by a CQC GP specialist adviser. A sample of the records of patients with long-term health conditions were checked to ensure the required monitoring was taking place. These searches were visible to the practice. At the previous inspection in 2023 we found patients who had two or more courses of rescue steroids had not been issued with a steroid card. At this assessment we found patients with the possible diagnosis of diabetes and kidney diseases following a blood test result, patients with asthma who had received the 2 or more courses of rescue steroids, and those treated for hyperthyroidism were monitored satisfactorily.

The national GP patient survey carried out from January to March 2024 had 107 responses. This asked patients whether their needs were met, was the healthcare professional good at listening to them, and were they involved in decisions about their care. The patients’ responses for these categories were below the national and local averages. The practice had carried out their own patient survey during April and May 2025, where they had 14 responses. The responses were more positive than the GP national survey and demonstrated some improvements. For example, 13 found their experience of using the practice very good or good, and most patients’ responses were either partially or fully satisfied with GP, nurse and receptionist care.

The practice mostly planned and delivered evidence-based patient care and treatment. The GP partners told us the practice had systems and processes to keep clinicians up to date with current evidence-based practice. Staff had access to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines (NICE) monthly clinical meetings and the pharmacist also alerted the clinical team to any safety alerts. The leaders stated they regularly participated in meetings, workshops, and training sessions within the primary care network and integrated care services frameworks. We reviewed a sample of both patient learning disability and mental health annual care plans and found they were satisfactory.

The lead partner explained that external meetings with nursing teams to establish and maintain safe systems of care had ceased during the Covid pandemic and not been reinstated. The provider explained contact with the healthcare professionals to discuss complex cases assessments was carried out when requested on an individual basis.

Staff told us the practice participated in the local Primary Care Network (PCN), where they collaborated closely on shared service delivery, workforce planning, and quality improvement initiatives. In addition, they met with the Integrated Care System (ICS) to align with broader regional priorities.

The practice supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Staff said patients had access to social prescribers, health and wellbeing coaches, mental health specialist nurses, and a local weight loss programme. Posters and leaflets were available to direct patients where to seek further advice. The practice had a list of patients’ carers and, staff explained they were working towards putting a system in place to provide extra support for the carers. The practice had recently employed a phlebotomist to enable patients to have their blood tests at the practice.

The practice had a system in place to recall patients for long term health condition reviews. They were also in the process of improving this by allocating administration leads for each condition to follow up patients and ensure continuity.

The practice provided unverified data 2024/25 of patient annual health reviews which demonstrated they had completed: all the reviews for patients with a learning disability, all patients with chronic obstructive airways disease, and 86% asthma reviews, 89% hypertension, 85% mental health, and 94% diabetes reviews.

The practice had carried various annual and two cycle audits to improve services for patients, these included gestational diabetes, cervical screening, childhood immunisations, and antibiotics.

At our last assessment, the practice was below the local and national targets for the uptake of childhood immunisation and cervical screening. At this assessment we found the practice had taken action in response. This included using a tracking tool, assigning a specific coordinator the responsibility of contacting and booking appointments, and organised talks at the local mosques to promote the uptake of both cervical screening and childhood immunisations. The practice submitted unverified data for 2024 to 2025 that showed they had improved and met two of the four world health targets for childhood vaccinations. The practice submitted unverified data for 2024 to 2025 that showed that they remained below the national targets for cervical screening.

The practice told people about their rights around consent. Clinicians understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making. We saw that consent was documented. Clinicians supported patients to make decisions.