Dr A Bisarya

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 assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre 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 people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. Records showed people had been informed about their condition, care and treatment options, including any associated risks and any advice provided. The service received high patient satisfaction scores in the National GP Patient Survey for questions linked to patient centredness. For example, 95% of respondents (compared to 83% nationally) found the reception and administrative team helpful and 90% (compared to 87% nationally) said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. 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. Referrals to other services were made promptly and information shared by other services was managed effectively and in a timely manner to support good outcomes for people.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. People were informed as to how to access their care records.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. 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 feedback, including complaints.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People could book appointments online, by telephone or in person, and urgent and routine appointments were available with a range of healthcare professionals. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and there was ramped access to the entrance.

The percentage of respondents in the National GP Patient Survey who responded positively to their experience of contacting the practice by telephone was 80% (compared to 50% nationally), and 88% of respondents (compared to 66% nationally) felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last appointment. 75% of people found it easy to contact the practice via their website (compared to 48% nationally). The provider had been proactive in supporting people to use this.

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. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, 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.

The results of the National GP Patient Survey indicated that 93% of respondents (compared to 90% nationally) felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment and 91% described their overall experience of the practice as good (compared to 74% nationally).

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.