Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Dr Bhupinder Batra, Stanley Street, London.

Dr Bhupinder Batra in Stanley Street, London is a Doctors/GP specialising in the provision of services relating to diagnostic and screening procedures, family planning services, maternity and midwifery services, services for everyone and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 11th April 2019

Dr Bhupinder Batra is managed by Dr Bhupinder Batra.

Contact Details:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Inadequate
Effective: Requires Improvement
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Inadequate
Overall: Inadequate

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-04-11
    Last Published 2019-04-11

Local Authority:

    Lewisham

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

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.

20th February 2019 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Bhupinder Batra, also known locally as Waldron Family GP Practice on 20 February 2019. The practice was previously inspected on 22 July 2015, where they were rated as good for providing effective, caring, responsive and well-led services and good overall. However, the practice was rated as requires improvement for providing safe services. The full comprehensive report of the 22 July 2015 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Bhupinder Batra on our website at .

This inspection was an announced comprehensive inspection carried out on 20 February 2019 as part of our inspection programme. This report covers our findings in relation to the actions we told the practice they should take to improve at our last inspection. This included:

  • Sharing lessons learnt from incidents with all relevant staff.
  • Undertaking a risk assessment to assure themselves the shared use of the AED equipment was sufficient and effective.
  • Actively seek to involve patients in developing and improving the service.
  • Implement systems to keep track of prescription pads.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as inadequate overall.

We rated the practice as inadequate for providing safe services because:

  • The practice did not have clear systems and processes to keep patients safe.
  • The practice did not have appropriate systems in place for the safe management of medicines.
  • The practice did not have appropriate medicines and equipment for the safe management of medical emergencies.
  • The practice did not ensure staff who required professional indemnity had this in place.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing effective services because:

  • The practice was unable to show that staff had the skills, knowledge and training to carry out their roles.
  • The practice was unable to show that it always obtained consent to care and treatment.
  • The practice had not ensured that exception reporting had been undertaken following assessment by a clinician.

These areas affected all population groups so we rated all population groups as requires improvement.

We rated the practice as inadequate for providing well-led services because:

  • The practice could not demonstrate that they had implemented actions to address the issues we told them they should take at the previous inspection on 22 July 2015. At this inspection we also identified additional concerns that put patients at risk.
  • While the practice had a vision, that vision was not supported by a credible strategy.
  • The overall governance arrangements were ineffective.
  • The practice did not have clear and effective processes for managing risks, issues and performance.
  • The practice did not always act on appropriate and accurate information.
  • We saw little evidence of systems and processes for learning, continuous improvement and innovation.

We rated the practice as good for providing caring and responsive services because:

  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review systems in place so minutes of meetings are recorded.
  • Implement actions to improve the uptake for childhood immunisation and for the cancer screening programme.

I am placing this service in special measures. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any population group, key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve.

The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.

Special measures will give people who use the service the reassurance that the care they get should improve.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

22nd July 2015 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Dr Bhupinder Batra on 22 July 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Please note that when referring to information throughout this report, for example any reference to the Quality and Outcomes Framework data, this relates to the most recent information available to the CQC at that time.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed. However lessons learnt were not always shared with all staff.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed .Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • 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.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that 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, but there was no Patient Participation Group (PPG) and no formal mechanism to obtain feedback from patients.

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

Importantly the provider should

  • Ensure lessons learnt from incidents are consistently shared with all relevant staff.
  • Ensure the practice conduct their own risk assessment to assure them that the use of shared AED equipment is sufficient and effective.
  • •Actively seek to involve patients in developing and improving the service.
  • Ensure systems are in place to keep track of prescription pads.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

9th July 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The practice had safety measures in place however some of these relating to staffing required improvement. Records showed all staff had received suitable training, including in Basic Life Support. They were aware of the importance of reporting incidents to ensure they were properly investigated. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks had not been carried out on two non-clinical staff members. Risk assessments had not been carried out to ensure these members of staff were suitable for employment without a DBS check. We noted these members of staff acted as chaperones and therefore may be eligible for DBS checks. We have asked the practice to take action in relation to this.

Improvements were required to make the service more effective. Procedures were in place to ensure care and treatment was delivered in line with appropriate standards. However, because staff had not had appraisals for about three years, there was no formal process to identify training and professional development needs. We have asked the practice to take action in relation to this.

The practice was caring however some improvement was required. Responses from patients we spoke with and comment cards we received showed that the practice staff treated patients with compassion, dignity and respect. However, we noted that staff acted as chaperones although they had not received training to ensure they understood their role and that the service being offered was effective. We have asked the practice to take action in relation to this.

The practice had measures in place to be responsive and meet the needs of its patient group. However some improvements could be made in relation to the collection and monitoring of complaints.

We found clear and visible leadership and lines of accountability. Governance arrangements were in place and there was effective use of the Patients Reference Group (PRG) to gain patient feedback. However we found regular supervision and appraisals were not taking place. Peer reviews between clinical staff were not taking place, however the practice participated in a local “practice to practice” peer review process whereby a GP from another local practice visited the practice, reviewed various issues and offered feedback.

Please note that when referring to information throughout this report, for example any reference to the Quality and Outcomes Framework data, this relates to the most recent information available to the CQC at that time.

 

 

Latest Additions: