Dr P Pal and Jemahl in Great Barr, Birmingham is a Doctors/GP specialising in the provision of services relating to diagnostic and screening procedures, maternity and midwifery services, services for everyone, surgical procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 7th June 2017
Dr P Pal and Jemahl is managed by Dr P Pal and Jemahl.
Contact Details:
Address:
Dr P Pal and Jemahl 33 Newton Road Great Barr Birmingham B43 6AA United Kingdom
Telephone:
01213571690
Ratings:
For a guide to the ratings, click here.
Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good
Further Details:
Important Dates:
Last Inspection
2017-06-07
Last Published
2017-06-07
Local Authority:
Sandwell
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.
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr P Pal and Jemahl on 19 April 2016. The overall rating for the practice was Good. However, for providing safe service the practice was rated as requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the April 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr P Pal and Jemahl on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 19 April 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection on the 19 April 2016.
Overall the practice is rated as Good.
Our key findings were as follows:
During our previous inspection in April 2016 we saw that the practice had considered the risks associated with not undertaking Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for some staff. However, these risk assessments were not effective to mitigate all risks. During this inspection we saw that all staff had undergone a DBS check.
When we inspected the practice in April 2016, we saw that the practice had carried out an annual analysis of significant events. However, all recorded incidents and significant events were not included in the analysis. During this follow up inspection, the practice had carried out an annual significant event audit including all significant events and occurrences.
At our previous inspection we saw evidence that patient medicine safety alerts were received and cascaded to relevant staff. However, the practice could not evidence the actions taken following receipt of safety alerts. During this follow up inspection the practice could demonstrate that a process was in place for the monitoring of actions taken following the receipt of medicine safety alerts.
When we inspected the practice in April 2016 we saw that health and safety risk assessments were not in place. At this follow up inspection we noted that actions had been taken to manage and mitigate risks related to health and safety.
During our previous inspection in April 2016 we saw the practice had a whistle blowing policy which needed review as it did not reflect existing guidance. During this follow up inspection we saw that the policy had been reviewed and staff members we spoke with were aware of the changes.
Treatment protocols clearly set out what actions should be taken in response to the results of health assessments, explaining the reason and justification for each action for health care staff. When we inspected the practice in April 2016, we saw the practice did not have protocols for the nurse and the healthcare assistant to guide decision-making around specific health issues. For example, the frequency of a structured review for an asthma patient. During this follow up inspection we saw that treatment protocols were available for staff on the practices computer system and they were based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. They included protocols on Hypertension, Asthma, and Angina amongst others.
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr P Pal and Jemahl on 19 April 2016. The overall rating for the practice was Good. However, for providing safe service the practice was rated as requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the April 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr P Pal and Jemahl on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 19 April 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection on the 19 April 2016.
Overall the practice is rated as Good.
Our key findings were as follows:
During our previous inspection in April 2016 we saw that the practice had considered the risks associated with not undertaking Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for some staff. However, these risk assessments were not effective to mitigate all risks. During this inspection we saw that all staff had undergone a DBS check.
When we inspected the practice in April 2016, we saw that the practice had carried out an annual analysis of significant events. However, all recorded incidents and significant events were not included in the analysis. During this follow up inspection, the practice had carried out an annual significant event audit including all significant events and occurrences.
At our previous inspection we saw evidence that patient medicine safety alerts were received and cascaded to relevant staff. However, the practice could not evidence the actions taken following receipt of safety alerts. During this follow up inspection the practice could demonstrate that a process was in place for the monitoring of actions taken following the receipt of medicine safety alerts.
When we inspected the practice in April 2016 we saw that health and safety risk assessments were not in place. At this follow up inspection we noted that actions had been taken to manage and mitigate risks related to health and safety.
During our previous inspection in April 2016 we saw the practice had a whistle blowing policy which needed review as it did not reflect existing guidance. During this follow up inspection we saw that the policy had been reviewed and staff members we spoke with were aware of the changes.
Treatment protocols clearly set out what actions should be taken in response to the results of health assessments, explaining the reason and justification for each action for health care staff. When we inspected the practice in April 2016, we saw the practice did not have protocols for the nurse and the healthcare assistant to guide decision-making around specific health issues. For example, the frequency of a structured review for an asthma patient. During this follow up inspection we saw that treatment protocols were available for staff on the practices computer system and they were based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. They included protocols on Hypertension, Asthma, and Angina amongst others.
©2019 Care Services, all rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced without permission of the copyright holders.
