Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Patel and Partners on 18 October 2016. The overall rating for the practice was Good but with Requires Improvement for safety. The full comprehensive report on the October 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Patel and Partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 9 August 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 on 18 October 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• Staff had completed safeguarding training and GPs were trained to child safeguarding level three and nurses to level two.

• Staff had completed infection prevention and control (IPC) training and clinical staff had completed training to level two.

• New flooring was fitted in rooms used to carry out treatments, such as cytology and phlebotomy.

• Storage of clinical waste in the practice had been risk assessed and some action had been taken to minimise risks.

• Arrangements for storage and transportation of blank prescription forms had been risk assessed and procedures brought into line with NHS Protect: Security of prescription forms guidance.

• The provider had implemented NICE guidelines in relation to disposal of sharps boxes.

• Staff immunity status was obtained for all staff in line with the recommendations.

• The provider had provided basic life support training for all staff and made arrangements to provide this training annually.

• The practice had reviewed the arrangements for provision and storage of emergency medicines to minimise the risk of confusion in an emergency situation.

• The provider had reviewed and improved systems to identify patients as carers. A member of staff from the staff reception team had taken responsibility to improve systems to identify carers. They had widely advertised for carers to identify themselves to the practice through posters and reception staff prompts and recorded this role on patient notes. At the last inspection they had only identified 59 patients as carers but since the last inspection they had identified 773 carers which equated to 5.9% of the patient population.

However, there were also areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

The provider should:

• Provide evidence of, at least weekly, checks of emergency equipment.

• Maintain a record of fire alarm testing at the branch site.

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 Patel and Partners on 18 October 2016. The overall rating for the practice was Good but with Requires Improvement for safety. The full comprehensive report on the October 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Patel and Partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 9 August 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 on 18 October 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• Staff had completed safeguarding training and GPs were trained to child safeguarding level three and nurses to level two.

• Staff had completed infection prevention and control (IPC) training and clinical staff had completed training to level two.

• New flooring was fitted in rooms used to carry out treatments, such as cytology and phlebotomy.

• Storage of clinical waste in the practice had been risk assessed and some action had been taken to minimise risks.

• Arrangements for storage and transportation of blank prescription forms had been risk assessed and procedures brought into line with NHS Protect: Security of prescription forms guidance.

• The provider had implemented NICE guidelines in relation to disposal of sharps boxes.

• Staff immunity status was obtained for all staff in line with the recommendations.

• The provider had provided basic life support training for all staff and made arrangements to provide this training annually.

• The practice had reviewed the arrangements for provision and storage of emergency medicines to minimise the risk of confusion in an emergency situation.

• The provider had reviewed and improved systems to identify patients as carers. A member of staff from the staff reception team had taken responsibility to improve systems to identify carers. They had widely advertised for carers to identify themselves to the practice through posters and reception staff prompts and recorded this role on patient notes. At the last inspection they had only identified 59 patients as carers but since the last inspection they had identified 773 carers which equated to 5.9% of the patient population.

However, there were also areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

The provider should:

• Provide evidence of, at least weekly, checks of emergency equipment.

• Maintain a record of fire alarm testing at the branch site.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

The practice consisted of two medical centres. On this occasion we visited the medical centre at Broom Lane, but reviewed records pertaining to both surgeries.

Patients expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

Patients’ needs were assessed and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual needs. The five patients we spoke with commented positively about the service they had received. They told us their treatments were clearly explained and raised no concerns about how they were treated. One person told us, “They are very good. I would recommend them. They are very efficient and always sort our problems out.”

Patients and staff were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance was available and had been followed. They told us the practice was always clean and well maintained.

Staff received appropriate professional development. We saw staff had accessed various training so they could meet patients’ needs and maintain their qualifications.

The practice had an effective well organised system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that patients received. Patients we spoke with told us that overall they were happy with the service they received.