Dr Bhupinder Batra, Stanley Street, London.Dr Bhupinder Batra in Stanley Street, London is a Doctors/GP specialising in the provision of services relating to diagnostic and screening procedures, family planning services, maternity and midwifery services, services for everyone and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 11th April 2019 Contact Details:
Ratings:For a guide to the ratings, click here. Further Details:Important Dates:
Local Authority:
Link to this page: Inspection Reports:Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.
20th February 2019 - During a routine inspection
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Bhupinder Batra, also known locally as Waldron Family GP Practice on 20 February 2019. The practice was previously inspected on 22 July 2015, where they were rated as good for providing effective, caring, responsive and well-led services and good overall. However, the practice was rated as requires improvement for providing safe services. The full comprehensive report of the 22 July 2015 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Bhupinder Batra on our website at .
This inspection was an announced comprehensive inspection carried out on 20 February 2019 as part of our inspection programme. This report covers our findings in relation to the actions we told the practice they should take to improve at our last inspection. This included:
We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:
We have rated this practice as inadequate overall.
We rated the practice as inadequate for providing safe services because:
We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing effective services because:
These areas affected all population groups so we rated all population groups as requires improvement.
We rated the practice as inadequate for providing well-led services because:
We rated the practice as good for providing caring and responsive services because:
The areas where the provider must make improvements are:
The areas where the provider should make improvements are:
I am placing this service in special measures. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any population group, key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve.
The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.
Special measures will give people who use the service the reassurance that the care they get should improve.
Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.
Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
22nd July 2015 - During a routine inspection
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Dr Bhupinder Batra on 22 July 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.
Please note that when referring to information throughout this report, for example any reference to the Quality and Outcomes Framework data, this relates to the most recent information available to the CQC at that time.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
However there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.
Importantly the provider should
Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)
Chief Inspector of General Practice
9th July 2014 - During a routine inspection
The practice had safety measures in place however some of these relating to staffing required improvement. Records showed all staff had received suitable training, including in Basic Life Support. They were aware of the importance of reporting incidents to ensure they were properly investigated. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks had not been carried out on two non-clinical staff members. Risk assessments had not been carried out to ensure these members of staff were suitable for employment without a DBS check. We noted these members of staff acted as chaperones and therefore may be eligible for DBS checks. We have asked the practice to take action in relation to this.
Improvements were required to make the service more effective. Procedures were in place to ensure care and treatment was delivered in line with appropriate standards. However, because staff had not had appraisals for about three years, there was no formal process to identify training and professional development needs. We have asked the practice to take action in relation to this.
The practice was caring however some improvement was required. Responses from patients we spoke with and comment cards we received showed that the practice staff treated patients with compassion, dignity and respect. However, we noted that staff acted as chaperones although they had not received training to ensure they understood their role and that the service being offered was effective. We have asked the practice to take action in relation to this.
The practice had measures in place to be responsive and meet the needs of its patient group. However some improvements could be made in relation to the collection and monitoring of complaints.
We found clear and visible leadership and lines of accountability. Governance arrangements were in place and there was effective use of the Patients Reference Group (PRG) to gain patient feedback. However we found regular supervision and appraisals were not taking place. Peer reviews between clinical staff were not taking place, however the practice participated in a local “practice to practice” peer review process whereby a GP from another local practice visited the practice, reviewed various issues and offered feedback.
Please note that when referring to information throughout this report, for example any reference to the Quality and Outcomes Framework data, this relates to the most recent information available to the CQC at that time.
|
Latest Additions:
|