We spoke with seven people who use the service. Overall they were satisfied with the care provided. One person told us "the service is fine, the doctors are very good". Another said "overall I'm very satisfied, particularly for the children. They’re very good with the children". Another person told us "the reception staff always treat me very well". However, three of the seven people told us they found it difficult to get an appointment when they needed one. One person said "it's a bit lengthy for appointments sometimes. This time I got one within a couple of days but it’s not usually so quick".

We found that the service had a good system in place to meet people's individual needs, and provided information on nutrition to people who use the service. We saw that the provider had taken steps to safeguard children and vulnerable adults from abuse, and collaborated well with the appropriate services to ensure this.

We found that the service met most of the government guidelines for cleanliness and infection control, and managed medicines in line with NHS standards. We saw that the premises were safe and suitable for the service provided, and equipment used in the service was recently tested in accordance with government requirements.

We found that the provider had taken steps to ensure staff were appropriately qualified, skilled and experienced for their jobs, and that the service had a suitable quality monitoring and improvement system in place.

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Indervir Dhandee, also known as the Grove Village Medical Centre on 15 November 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, except that the practice did not undertake risk assessments for Legionella at regular intervals.
• 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.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Review arrangements in place to ensure that patients with caring responsibilities are identified, so their needs are identified and can be met.

• Ensure that appropriate risk assessments are undertaken at regular intervals for Legionella.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice