Dr Samir Sadik

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 assessed all quality statements in this key question. At our last inspection the practice was rated inadequate in effective. This was because: - • Patients did not always receive effective care and treatment that met their needs. • Care and treatment was not always delivered in line with current legislation, standards and evidence based guidance supported by clear pathways and tools. • Patients with long term conditions did not receive reviews that included all elements to sustain good outcomes. • Patients were not always followed up in a timely manner when necessary. • Quality improvement activity did not evidence improvement. During this assessment, we found all the required improvements had been made. Our rating for this key question is good overall. We found staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

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.

Feedback from people was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs.

Staff and leaders were aware of the needs of the local community. Staff told us they checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews.

The provider had systems and processes to keep clinicians up to date with current evidence-based practice. People’s immediate and ongoing needs were fully assessed. This included their clinical needs and their mental and physical wellbeing. Staff could add digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present.

People had no specific feedback on this area.

Staff and leaders were encouraged to learn about new and innovative approaches that evidence shows can improve the way their service delivers care.

The provider had systems to ensure staff were up to date with national legislation, evidence-based good practice and required standards. For example, the provider had a standing agenda item on the monthly meeting for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) updates.

People had no specific feedback on this area.

Staff felt their ideas about how to improve the service were listened to. Staff told us they were kept up to date through practice meetings, minutes of these meetings were shared for staff who could not attend.

Partners had no specific feedback on this area.

The provider had processes in place, so information was shared between teams and services to ensure continuity of care. The provider had regular meetings to ensure all staff, teams and services worked well together. Partnership meetings were held weekly. Practice and clinical meetings were held monthly. The meetings had standardised agendas which included learning from complaints and incidents, vulnerable patients, best practice/new guidance updates and practice news/updates.

People had no specific feedback on this area.

Staff identified patients who needed extra support and directed them to relevant services. This included patients in the last 12 months of their lives, patients at risk of developing a long-term condition and carers.

Patients were told when they needed to seek further help and what to do if their condition deteriorated.

People told us they were able to get results to tests in a way that suited them as soon as they were available. People felt their health was monitored appropriately and explained to them.

Leaders told us they had plans to improve the quality of audits and improvement projects. Although there were not any full cycle audits completed within the last twelve months there were plans to repeat the cancer audit of 2023 to form a full cycle audit as well as start two new audits; patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are prescribed a statin, and percentage of patients referred under the two week wait (2WW) lower gastrointestinal pathway who have not had a cancer screening test.

As part of the inspection a number of set clinical record searches were undertaken by a CQC GP specialist advisor remotely. The results from the searches demonstrated there were effective processes in place to monitor people’s care and treatment. This meant that continuous improvements were made to people’s care and treatment.

The results from the clinical searches undertaken were very positive and demonstrated there were effective approaches to monitor and improve people’s outcomes.

People received information about care and treatment in a way they could understand and have appropriate support and time to make decisions.

Staff understand the importance of ensuring that people fully understand what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before they delivered care or treatment.

There were systems and practices to ensure people understood the care and treatment being offered or recommended. This helped them make an informed decision.