The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Hazim Ahmad Also known as Lawford Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Lawford Surgery, 2 Edgefield Avenue, Lawford, Manningtree, Essex, CO11 2HD (01206) 392617

Provided and run by:
Dr Hazim Ahmad

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr Hazim Ahmad on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Dr Hazim Ahmad, you can give feedback on this service.

22 January 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr Hazim Ahmad on 22 January 2020. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

07 November 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Hazim Ahmad practice on 29 November 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on November 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Hazim Ahmad on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced comprehensive inspection carried out on 07 November 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 29 November 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall, the practice is now rated as Good.

The key questions were rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People - Good

People with long-term conditions - Good

Families, children and young people - Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students - Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable - Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) – Good

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice used systems to manage risk and safety incidents to reduce the likelihood of re-occurrence.
  • When incidents happened, learning was shared with all staff and their procedures were improved at the practice.
  • Incidents were regularly reviewed for effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided at the practice. We saw care and treatment was delivered according to evidence-based guidelines.
  • All staff members had received a ‘Disclosure and Barring Service’ (DBS) check.
  • Policies were practice specific, had been updated, and reviewed. All staff knew where and how to access them.
  • The emergency equipment and medicine monitoring process had been improved and was found to be effective.
  • Evidence was seen that two-week wait referrals were well managed to ensure patients were not missed.
  • Patients told us they were involved in their treatment and treated with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • We found the appointment system was easy for patients to access care when needed.
  • There was a strong focus on learning and improvement throughout the practice.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Improve the identification of patients who are carer’s to ensure they are provided with appropriate support.
  • Develop greater access to practice information when the practice is closed, for example; accessibility to practice information on the internet for patients.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

29 November 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out a comprehensive inspection at Dr Hazim Ahmad on 29 November 2016.

Overall, the practice is rated as requires improvement.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There were arrangements in place to raise concerns, and report safety incidents. However, lessons learned from incidents were not shared with administrative staff members or reviewed to identify any themes or trends.
  • Patient safety and medicine alerts received at the practice were not managed effectively.
  • The practice had a GP safeguarding lead and trained staff members to keep patients safeguarded from abuse.
  • Risks to patients and staff members were assessed and documented regularly and actions taken to improve.
  • Dispensary staff members had received training to carry out their roles; and received regular competency checks to ensure their proficiency.
  • Patient care and treatment was planned using current clinical guidance.
  • Patient comments were positive about the practice and the services provided.
  • The number of patients identified as carers on their computer records was 13, this equated to 0.4% of their practice population.
  • Information regarding how to complain was available in a leaflet format and on a notice in the waiting room. Complaints had been recorded and patients had received an explanation and or apology if appropriate.
  • Patients told us there were urgent appointments available on the day requested.
  • On the day of our inspection, not all staff members acting as a chaperone or seeing patients on their own had received a ‘Disclosure and Barring Service’ (DBS) check.
  • Annual health reviews and medicine assessments were undertaken following current guidance. However, patients prescribed high-risk medicines and medicine that needed regular tests and checks were not recorded, in line with guidance.
  • The practice system to track two-week wait referrals was not documented or reviewed from the point of referral to specialist consultants appointment.
  • The practice had suitable facilities and was sufficiently equipped to treat patients and meet their various health needs.
  • Oxygen held at the practice for use in medical emergencies was three years out of date and there was no monitoring system in place.
  • Some policies and procedures at the practice required an update and review, including infection control, safeguarding and medicines management.
  • The practice patient participation group was made up of virtual members, and members that met six monthly to provide feedback about the services provided.
  • Staff members said they were supported in their working roles by the practice manager and the GPs and the leadership structure was clear.

The areas where the provider must make improvements:

  • Implement an effective system to manage patient safety and medicine alerts.
  • Ensure there is an effective system in place to monitor patients taking high risk medicines and those that require regular tests and checks, in line with published guidance.
  • All staff members acting as a chaperone or seeing patients unaccompanied must have a ‘Disclosure and Barring Service’ (DBS) check or a risk assessment in place if one is not considered necessary.
  • Ensure there is a system in place to monitor the expiry date of oxygen stored at the practice.

The areas where the provider should make improvements:

  • Share and record safety incident learning with all relevant staff members to embed learning throughout the practice to ensure themes or trends can be assessed.
  • Ensure that policies are relevant to the practice and available for staff to refer to and support them in their roles.
  • Record the temperature of fridges in line with guidance used for the storage of medicines.
  • Improve the identification of patients who are carer’s to ensure they are provided with support.
  • Ensure the system to track two-week wait referrals from referral to appointment are documented to ensure patients pathways can be monitored.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

28 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six people, all of whom gave positive responses about how their care and treatment was assessed and planned. One person told us, 'The GP knows my situation. They assessed me and made appropriate referrals.' We saw that people's needs were reviewed. One person we spoke with said, 'They are good. They review me regularly. They look after me very well.' People said they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. One person said, 'I am always asked my opinion and what I want to do.'

There was an induction pack available although some of the information was out of date. There was no documented evidence that induction had been undertaken by new staff to the surgery. However, we looked at three staff files and found staff received training to enable them to undertake their role effectively. One staff member said, 'If you want to go on training or courses, it is not a problem.' We saw there was evidence of annual appraisals. One staff member told us, 'I have an appraisal every year.'

There was a process in place for identifying and learning from significant events. We reviewed four significant events and found that learning had been identified and action had been taken to reduce the risk of similar incidents reoccurring. We saw that improvements had been made to ensure the risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others were reduced and managed.