Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Jerome Kaine Ikwueke on 9 January 2017. 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.
• 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:

• Improve the identification of carers to ensure their needs are known and can be met.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

This inspection was a follow up to our visits to the practice on the 16 and 22 October 2013.

At that time we found that the service was failing to comply with the requirements of Regulations 15, 16 and 21 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. Specifically, we found that there had been no recent fire safety risk assessment of the premises, that there had been no recent testing of the fire alarm and fire drills were not routinely carried out. We saw that some disposable medical instruments and supplies were out of date. Finally, there was not sufficient evidence that the provider operated effective employment procedures.

After our inspection in October, the provider sent us a plan of the actions the practice intended to take to meet the requirements of the regulations. We made this follow up inspection to check that the actions planned had been implemented.

We found that the provider had taken sufficient steps to comply with the requirements of the regulations.

We inspected the service on the 16 and 22 October 2013. We spoke with the provider, practice manager, health care assistant and administrative staff. We spoke with people who used the service and reviewed health care records and other records regarding the service. We reviewed other records provided after the inspection. The provider worked with two other doctors, one of whom was on maternity leave. Cover was being provided by locums.

People we spoke with were generally happy with the service provided, although two said that making convenient appointments was occasionally difficult. People told us that the doctors explained matters well and that they had been able to ask questions about their treatment and to make choices.

Many people using the service had English as a second language. There was a very limited amount of information regarding the service, and general health care issues, available in languages other than English at the practice. However, a telephone translation service was available for people attending appointments.

The premises and furniture were clean and tidy. However, we found that there had been no recent fire safety risk assessment. There had been no recent testing of the fire alarm and fire drills were not routinely carried out. Some disposable medical instruments and supplies were out of date.

There was not sufficient evidence that the provider operated effective employment procedures.

We have set compliance actions accordingly.