This practice is rated as Good overall.

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Dr Girja Kugapala (Also known as the E12 Medical Centre) on 14 March 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

• 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.
• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

We rated the practice as good for providing effective and well-led services:

• 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.
• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.
• A new document management had been implemented for paper correspondence but needed better monitoring to ensure it was operating effectively.

We saw one area of notable practice:

• The practice had dedicated staff to recall patients who did not attend for appointments for breast and bowel cancel screening and long-term conditions such as diabetes. The practice placed a very high priority on these calls and it was evidenced in the above average Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) scores and in the levels of uptake of cancer screening and child immunisations.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Continue to embed and evaluate arrangements for incoming paper correspondence, such as patient’s clinical correspondence.
• Review and improve information in the reception area for patients speaking English as a second language.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BS BM BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Girija Kugapala on 6 July 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
• 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. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

• The practice had a dedicated person who recalls patients who did not attend for appointments for breast and bowel cancel screening and long term conditions such as diabetes. The practice placed a very high priority on these calls and it was evidenced in the above average Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) scores and in the levels of uptake of cancer screening.

The area where the provider should make improvement are:

• To review the systems in place for identifying and supporting patients who are also carers.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice