Dr Samir Sadik

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 assessed all quality statements in this key question. At our last inspection the practice was rated requires improvement in responsive. This was because: - • Patients could not always access care and treatment in a timely way. • Complaints were not managed in a way that demonstrated the duty of candour and were not always dealt with in accordance with regulatory requirements. During this assessment, we found that improvements had been made. Our rating for this key question is good overall. We found staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements.

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.

People received the most appropriate care and treatment for them. The provider made reasonable adjustments where necessary.

Staff and leaders gave examples of people receiving the most appropriate care and treatment for them as the provider made reasonable adjustments where necessary.

Waterloo Medical Centre had a smaller (around 3300) patient list, as such staff told us they were flexible with their provision of care to meet the needs of their patients. For this reason, the provider did not offer specific clinics for specific conditions, except for an open clinic for flu season. They would see patients for any condition at any time.

Partners had no specific feedback on this area.

People’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs. The provider worked with services in a co-ordinated and responsive way.

People received information and advice that was accurate, up to date and provided in a way that they could understand.

Staff and leaders ensured people’s individual needs to have information in an accessible way were identified, recorded, highlighted and shared. All staff had completed General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) training.

The provider had up to date access to medical records and data protection policy that was due to be reviewed in September 2024 and an information governance policy that was due to be reviewed in August 2024. The practice was registered with the Information Commissioner's Office.

People were encouraged and enabled to feedback about their care in ways that worked for them, and they knew how it was acted on. The provider had reintroduced the patient participation group (PPG) and intended to meet every 3 or 4 months.

Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement and staff gave examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice.

The provider received nine complaints in the past 12 months. We reviewed four complaints in detail, we found written responses were not provided to patients. We discussed this with the provider, and they created a template they planned to use in future. They explained patients had been asked whether they wanted a written or verbal response and had acted on what they wanted but planned in future to always give a written response. The website did not have information on how patients could make a complaint that was easily accessed by patients without searching for it. The provider added a ‘suggestions and complaints’ section to their website during the assessment period to make it easier for patients to access this information.

People could access care, treatment and support when they needed to and in a way that worked for them, this promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights. The practice GP patient survey results for access where equal to national and local averages except the percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who were satisfied with the appointment (or appointments) they were offered was 67.7% in April 2023 which was a negative variation to the ICB average of 71.5% and the national average of 72.04%.

The provider prioritised and allocated resources as needed to tackle inequalities and achieve equity of access. Leaders told us they had started to send reminders to patients to attend appointments to help reduce did not attends (When a patient misses their appointment, it is referred to as a 'Did Not Attend' (DNA)). Staff told us sending the reminder had reduced DNAs by a quarter.

People could make an appointment by calling the practice or attending the practice. Patient appointments were available either face to face, on the telephone, or as a home visit. Patients could not request appointments through the website at the time of the inspection. Routine nurse and doctor appointments could be made in advance and urgent appointments requested on the day. The provider had created an action plan to address access issues at the practice. This plan reviewed the use of extended access, training for reception staff in signposting patients to the right place and reviewed the phone system. The provider was upskilling a member of staff to become a GP Assistant (GP Assistants provide a support role, carrying out administrative tasks, combined in some areas with basic clinical duties.) This would enable appropriate nurse appointments to be dealt with by the GP assistant, which would enable appropriate GP appointments to be dealt with by the nurse, which may mean more availability for GP appointments.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive about the care and treatment they received.

Staff and leaders 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. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

People had no specific feedback on this area.

Staff made sure when people wanted to express their wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation, they were supported to do so and were able to change their mind if they wish. Leaders made sure external services were involved or updated when needed.

The provider had processes in place to help people plan ahead for important changes in their lives. People were supported to plan ahead for important changes in their lives. We saw evidence staff acted without discrimination when supporting people and their families to make decisions.