Dr Satnam Sodhi Also known as SMS Medical Practice

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 a total of 2 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores for the quality statement areas we did not assess this time based on the rating for those areas from the last inspection, where these areas were rated as good. Our rating for this key question remains good. We found that the practice assessed people’s needs and was generally providing effective care. The practice could demonstrate improving performance in relation to cervical screening and childhood immunisation coverage. However, there was scope for improvement to the practice’s call-recall systems to ensure that patients who required ongoing monitoring for hypothyroidism were more effectively encouraged to attend

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.

Patient feedback was positive about how their immediate and ongoing needs were fully assessed and managed. This included their clinical needs and their mental and physical wellbeing.

Clinical staff were able to describe how they incorporated clinical guidelines and updates into practice. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community and flagged individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments on the care records system. Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews.

Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

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.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People participating in the assessment were wholly positive about the service in general terms, consistently describing it as ‘excellent’. We did not receive specific examples from people about monitoring and improving outcomes. However, the practice shared with us examples of how they routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it, including patient feedback.

The leaders and staff were able to describe actions taken to encourage people to attend for screening and immunisation, for example, individually contacting people who had not attended cervical screening by telephone to explain the benefits of the test.

We carried out standardised searches of the clinical records system to examine whether the provider was monitoring selected long-term conditions appropriately. The results showed that the provider was managing people diagnosed with diabetic retinopathy but whose recent blood sugar levels were not well controlled in line with guidelines. However, we found that patients with hypothyroidism were not always being monitored appropriately. This was because the practice did not have an effective process for handling the situation where patients were not responding to invitations to attend for monitoring. The provider confirmed that they would put new processes in place to encourage patients to attend after the assessment.

The provider was achieving over 90% childhood immunisation coverage in line with the recommended schedule for children by the age of 1 and 2 years old. Performance on cervical screening was below the national target but had improved over the previous year.

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.