Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr. Jeyanathan and partners on 20 April 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the April 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr. Jeyanathan and partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 4 May 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 20 April 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• The practice had taken action on all of the areas identified for improvement.

• There were clearly defined and embedded systems, processes and practices in place to keep patients safe and safeguarded from abuse.

• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

• There was an overarching governance framework which supported the delivery of the strategy and good quality care. This included arrangements to monitor and improve quality and identify risk.

  However, the provider should:

• Monitor complaints handling to ensure consistent responses in line with guidance.

• Verify that Control of Substances Hazardous to Health assessments are correctly completed, to ensure appropriate precautions are in place.

• Monitor systems to ensure all areas of the premises are clean and tidy.

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. Jeyanathan and partners on 20 April 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the April 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr. Jeyanathan and partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 4 May 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 20 April 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• The practice had taken action on all of the areas identified for improvement.

• There were clearly defined and embedded systems, processes and practices in place to keep patients safe and safeguarded from abuse.

• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

• There was an overarching governance framework which supported the delivery of the strategy and good quality care. This included arrangements to monitor and improve quality and identify risk.

  However, the provider should:

• Monitor complaints handling to ensure consistent responses in line with guidance.

• Verify that Control of Substances Hazardous to Health assessments are correctly completed, to ensure appropriate precautions are in place.

• Monitor systems to ensure all areas of the premises are clean and tidy.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Most of the six people we spoke with were positive about the care and treatment they received. Two of the people we spoke with were representatives of the practice’s patient participation group (PPG), they told us they had no concerns about the practice and the services it provided. One person said, “the practice provides a very professional, person-centred approach to treatment.” Another person told us, “I have no complaints; the practice has a team of very approachable doctors, nurses and receptionists.” Another told us they were happy with the service they received now but had previously requested, and been granted, a change of doctor.

People told us they felt involved in decisions about their care, were mostly provided with clear information and understood the treatment and choices available. There were mixed views regarding the availability of appointments. People told us they were able to get an appointment most of the time. Some found it frustrating trying to get through to reception in the morning. Sometimes, when they did get through, no more appointments were available on the day, so they came to the walk in service available at the site.

Care was planned and delivered in way to ensure people’s safety and welfare. We saw up to date plans that set out people’s care and treatment needs, identified potential risks to their health and showed their agreement was sought in the care and treatment provided.

There were procedures in place to safeguard people from abuse. However, these were not sufficient to ensure people were fully protected from the risk of abuse.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place and people were supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided. People who used the service gave feedback through patient surveys on service quality and delivery. The service had a patient participation group which provided support and advice to the practice on behalf of patients. The service had systems to manage and review incidents and complaints.