Dr Satnam Sodhi Also known as SMS Medical Practice

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We assessed all 7 quality statements from this key question. Our rating for this key question remains good. We found that the service was well-led because there was visible and supportive leadership and a culture focusing on person-centred care. The practice leaders worked with external stakeholders to improve the quality of care and patient experience. Staff told us they received good team support from colleagues and leaders with opportunities to develop. There was a focus on learning and improvement although there was scope to increase and embed the use of audit, for example, in relation to medicines optimisation; diagnosing diabetes and recalling patients with hypothyroidism.

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 staff about the shared direction and culture at the practice was consistently positive. Staff told us the practice was well-designed, clean and well-equipped and the team was supportive and worked together well. Leaders and staff told us that their aim was to provide a high-quality service and they were proud of the improvements they had made to ensure patients could get appointments when they needed them.

The practice leaders had identified short and longer-term priorities and had a strategy in place to achieve these goals. The provider had a patient-centred focus and responded to issues flexibly. For example, if waiting times were increasing for the minor surgery service provided by the lead GP, they would add additional surgical sessions to ensure people were seen promptly.

Leaders demonstrated that they understood the challenges to quality and sustainability and had identified the actions necessary to address these challenges. All the staff members we spoke with described the leaders as friendly and supportive. They said the practice was an enjoyable place to work and they were proud of the service they were able to offer.

There were processes to manage performance, and leaders used data to compare the practice’s performance with other similar and local services to monitor and improve the quality of care and service.

Staff we spoke with were positive about the support they received from leaders. They told us there was good communication within the practice and they would feel able to raise any concerns without fear of retribution.

The practice had a Whistleblowing Policy and this included details for the practice’s Freedom to Speak Up Guardian. Freedom to Speak Up Guardians offer support to staff to raise concerns, or speak up, when they feel they cannot in other ways.

Staff we spoke with did not identify any concerns around workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. Leaders understood their responsibility to make reasonable adjustments.

The provider had policies and processes in place to ensure the practice was an inclusive workplace. The practice was accessible. The practice encouraged staff to develop their experience and skills. Staff had undertaken equality and diversity training.

Leaders and managers supported staff, and all staff we spoke with were clear on their individual roles and responsibilities. Managers met with staff regularly to complete appraisals and performance reviews. Staff knew where to find policies and guidance.

The provider had established governance processes that were appropriate for their service. For example, practice policies were reviewed and updated in line with recommendations or when the practice was aware of new guidance. Staff could access all required policies and procedures. Managers held monthly practice meetings with staff and there were daily huddles, during which any clinical concerns and emerging risks were discussed. Managers clearly recorded any actions arising from these meetings and ensured they shared these with staff and the wider team as appropriate. Staff took patient confidentiality and information security seriously. However, our standardised searches identified some areas where the practice did not have effective processes in place, for example, when recalling people who required ongoing monitoring when prescribed certain medicines. The provider told us that it recognised this was a gap and provided evidence following the assessment to show that it was reviewing and improving its practice in this area.

The practice had an active Patient Participation Group (PPG). We received feedback from representatives of the PPG who were positive about the working partnership between the group and the practice. They told us the PPG met every 6 months with practice staff and were updated on patient feedback and improvements to the service. For example, improvements were made to the appointment system in response to patient feedback and the PPG told us these changes had a positive impact on patients’ experience of booking an appointment.

Staff and leaders reported positive benefits from working as a network with other local practices and utilising the available network resources. They were able to provide specific examples of how people were benefiting from being able to consult with staff (funded by the network) in associated roles such as the social prescriber who could support people with issues such as housing, employment and social activities. The leaders also told us how they were actively engaging with the Local Medical Committee and secondary care providers to clarify the safety of local referral processes.

Partners spoke positively about the practice’s involvement in partnership working and collaboration to provide an effective and responsive service.

The practice actively sought feedback from patients. The practice had established an active patient participation group and reviewed feedback from other sources, for example, the National GP Patient Survey and the ‘NHS Friends and Family Test’.

The leaders and staff were able to describe learning and improvement. Staff at all levels were proud that patients were able to access the service speedily and described this as a meaningful recent improvement. This was echoed in many of the comments we received from people participating in the assessment who commented positively about access.

The practice was making good progress in utilising a new web-based practice management system which had been implemented across the primary care network. There were well-established systems to learn from incidents, updates, and staff and patient feedback. The practice provided minor surgery for people registered with local practices. The practice carried out clinical audit and other quality improvement activity and was making use of primary care network-funded resources, such as the clinical pharmacist team. However, there was scope to improve the use of audit to ensure that the practice was implementing national patient safety alerts; effectively managing risk in relation to prescribing; and maintaining the quality of documented medicine reviews.