Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Navaid Alam (TG Medical Centre) on 17 May 2016 and at this time the practice was rated overall as good. However breaches of legal requirements were also found. After the comprehensive inspection the practice wrote to us and told us that they would take action to meet the following legal requirements set out in the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008:

Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2010, Safe care and treatment.

Regulation 13 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2010, Safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment.

On 5 October 2016 we carried out a focused review of this service under section 60 of the Health and Social care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. The review was carried out to check whether the provider had completed the improvements needed and identified during the comprehensive review in May 2016. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. The report from our last comprehensive inspection can be read by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Navaid Alam on our website at cqc.org.uk

The findings of this review were as follows:

• The practice had addressed the issues identified during the previous inspection.

• Effective systems were now in place to safeguard people and prevent abuse. Staff had been suitably trained and policies and procedures reflected current guidance and legislation.

• Effective systems were now in place to monitor and mitigate the risks relating to the health, safety and welfare or patients and others. In particular in relation to the risks of general environmental risks, infection, storage of vaccines, medical equipment use and the management of prescription security.

We found that the practice had acted upon other recommendations made at the previous inspection to improve the service and care. For example:

• There was an effective system was in place to monitor clinical staffs professional registration such as with the General Medical Council (GMC) and Nursing and Midwifery Council (MNC).

• An audit policy and plan was in place.

• Patient reviews were undertaken and an effective system was in place to recall patients needing reviews.

• A nurse practitioner had been appointed which will increase capacity to care and treat patients.

• A NICE guidance policy had been implemented to set out the processes for implementing, monitoring and reporting progress in relation to NICE guidance and quality standards.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Navaid Alam (TG Medical Centre) on 17 May 2016 and at this time the practice was rated overall as good. However breaches of legal requirements were also found. After the comprehensive inspection the practice wrote to us and told us that they would take action to meet the following legal requirements set out in the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008:

Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2010, Safe care and treatment.

Regulation 13 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2010, Safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment.

On 5 October 2016 we carried out a focused review of this service under section 60 of the Health and Social care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. The review was carried out to check whether the provider had completed the improvements needed and identified during the comprehensive review in May 2016. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. The report from our last comprehensive inspection can be read by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Navaid Alam on our website at cqc.org.uk

The findings of this review were as follows:

• The practice had addressed the issues identified during the previous inspection.

• Effective systems were now in place to safeguard people and prevent abuse. Staff had been suitably trained and policies and procedures reflected current guidance and legislation.

• Effective systems were now in place to monitor and mitigate the risks relating to the health, safety and welfare or patients and others. In particular in relation to the risks of general environmental risks, infection, storage of vaccines, medical equipment use and the management of prescription security.

We found that the practice had acted upon other recommendations made at the previous inspection to improve the service and care. For example:

• There was an effective system was in place to monitor clinical staffs professional registration such as with the General Medical Council (GMC) and Nursing and Midwifery Council (MNC).

• An audit policy and plan was in place.

• Patient reviews were undertaken and an effective system was in place to recall patients needing reviews.

• A nurse practitioner had been appointed which will increase capacity to care and treat patients.

• A NICE guidance policy had been implemented to set out the processes for implementing, monitoring and reporting progress in relation to NICE guidance and quality standards.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

We found that there were suitable systems in place to gain consent from the patients. Staff who obtained consent were experienced and knowledgeable and were able to describe the consent process. Staff were knowledgeable in safeguarding of vulnerable adults and children and had received appropriate training. Patients were very satisfied with the service they received. They told us:

“We respect the GP’s as professional people and they respect us”.

“It’s like stepping back about 20 years, GP’s have time for me and the general attitude of everyone is very pleasant. This comes from the top down, a nice, friendly atmosphere”,

We found that patients care and treatment was assessed, planned and delivered in order to meet their needs. Care and treatment plans were fully documented and reviewed. Patients were fully informed and involved in their care or treatment.

Staff were inducted, trained and supervised appropriately and were well supported by the manager and provider.

We found the provider had effective systems in place for monitoring the quality of services. Regular audits were undertaken, there was an effective complaints process and regular patient satisfaction surveys were undertaken. A patient participation group functioned within the practice and some members whom we spoke with gave us positive feedback regarding the service.