Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 10 November 2014 – Good)

The key questions are 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

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Ahmad and Partners on 7 December 2017 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

At this inspection we found:

• The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
• The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.
• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We inspected Dr Ahmad and Partners on 10 November 2014. This was a comprehensive inspection. This means we reviewed the provider in relation to the five key questions leading to a rating on each on a four point rating scale. We assessed all six of the population groups and the inspection took place at the same time as we inspected a number of practices in the area overseen by Wigan and Leigh Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).

The overall rating for Dr Ahmad and Partners was good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• Systems were in place for ensuring the practice was regularly cleaned. We found the practice to be clean at the time of our visit. A system was in place for managing Infection prevention and control.
• The practice had systems in place to ensure best practice was followed. This is to ensure that people’s care, treatment and support achieves good outcomes and is based on the best available evidence.
• Information we received from patients reflected that practice staff interacted with them in a positive and empathetic way. They told us that they were treated with respect, always in a polite manner and as an individual.
• Patients spoke positively in respect of accessing services at the practice. A system was in place for patients who required urgent appointments to be seen the same day. Patients accessed appointments by telephone as the practice did not have a web site.

We found an area of outstanding practice. Patients with a higher risk of an unplanned hospital admission had a care plan in place that was regularly updated. The practice had an arrangement with the ambulance service so that if they attended a patient with a care plan during the opening hours of the practice they telephoned a GP for advice to try to avoid a hospital admission.

There were however also areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

The provider should:

• We saw no evidence of the practice nurse having a formal appraisal meeting for several years.
• Although all staff knew the procedure they should follow if they had a safeguarding concern not all clinical staff had received formal training.
• When a patient did not speak English family members were routinely used to interpret during consultations. Consideration had not been given about to ensuring the correct information was given to the patient or that the patient was able to give informed consent.
• There was no female GP available and patients reported that at times they would prefer to see a female GP.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)

Chief Inspector of General Practice