Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..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 K Anantha-Reddy's Practice, Masefield Lane, Hayes.

Dr K Anantha-Reddy's Practice in Masefield Lane, Hayes is a Doctors/GP specialising in the provision of services relating to diagnostic and screening procedures, maternity and midwifery services, services for everyone and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 8th January 2020

Dr K Anantha-Reddy's Practice is managed by Dr K Anantha-Reddy's Practice.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Dr K Anantha-Reddy's Practice
      1-2 Yeading Court
      Masefield Lane
      Hayes
      UB4 9AJ
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      02088451515

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

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

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2020-01-08
    Last Published 2019-01-25

Local Authority:

    Hillingdon

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.

4th December 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr K Anantha-Reddy's Practice, also known as Yeading Court Surgery, on 4 December 2018.

At the last inspection in January 2018 we rated the practice as requires improvement for providing safe, caring and well-led services because:

  • Prescription stationery was not stored securely and there was no system to monitor their use.
  • There was no system to review uncollected repeat prescriptions, particularly for vulnerable patients and those with complex health needs.
  • Staff were unclear on which method to use when recording significant events, and completed significant event forms lacked detail of the lessons learned and follow-up of the event.
  • Data from the national GP patient survey 2017 showed patients rated the practice below local and national averages for satisfaction with GP consultations.
  • Privacy was not always maintained between the treatment room and a consultation room as some consultations could be overheard.
  • There were weaknesses in governance systems relating to safety areas.
  • Exception reporting for cervical screening was high.

At this inspection, we found that the provider had satisfactorily addressed most of these areas.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service is 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 good overall.

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

  • There had been insufficient improvement in uptake rates for childhood immunisations and cervical screening.
  • Exception reporting for cervical screening had marginally reduced but remained above the local and national average.
  • There was no system to ensure clinical coding was consistent.

These areas affected the families, children and young people population group and the working age group.

We rated the practice as good for providing safe, caring, responsive and well-led services because:

  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect. Feedback from patients we spoke with and CQC comment cards stated staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. Although, results from the national GP patient survey showed some patients did not feel involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Feedback from patients we spoke with and CQC comment cards showed patients found the appointment system easy to use, however some patients reported difficulties getting an appointment. The practice was aware of this feedback and had taken action to improve access.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Take interim action to minimise the outstanding risks identified in the infection prevention and control audit.
  • Continue to review and improve uptake rates for bowel cancer screening.
  • Continue to review and improve patient satisfaction with consultations and access to appointments.

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

9th January 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as requires improvement overall.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr K Anantha-Reddy's Practice on 15 December 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the December 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr K Anantha-Reddy's Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced comprehensive inspection carried out on 9 January 2018 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 15 December 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

We found the practice had made improvements since our last inspection. However we identified shortfalls in other areas. Overall the practice remains rated as requires improvement.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Requires improvement

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Requires improvement

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Requires improvement

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Requires improvement

People with long-term conditions – Requires improvement

Families, children and young people – Requires improvement

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Requires improvement

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Requires improvement

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Requires improvement

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had implemented a system to ensure safety alerts were disseminated and acted on.
  • The practice had systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. However, there were weaknesses in monitoring uncollected repeat prescriptions and managing prescription stationery.
  • The practice had implemented a system to manage significant events. However, this required improvement as staff were unclear of which process to follow.
  • When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes. However, the completed significant event forms we reviewed lacked detail of the lessons learned and follow-up of the event.
  • The practice was equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Privacy curtains in consultation rooms were now disposable and changed every three months.
  • The practice reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence-based guidelines.
  • The practice had demonstrated improvements in performance for the Quality and Outcomes Framework and breast cancer screening.
  • Improvements were still required in relation to exception reporting and uptake for the cervical screening programme, and bowel cancer screening rates.
  • The practice had used clinical audit to drive improvements in patient outcomes.
  • The practice had continued to identify and support more patients who were also carers.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. However, we found privacy was not maintained in the treatment room as conversations could be overheard from a consultation room.
  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use but reported increased waiting times to access routine appointments. The practice had made changes to the appointment system in response to patient feedback.
  • The practice had taken steps to develop their patient participation group and had recruited more members to the group.
  • There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

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

Importantly, the provider must:

  • Ensure that all patients are treated with dignity and respect.
  • 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 the processes for recording significant events.
  • Establish a system to ensure results are received for cervical screening samples and monitor inadequate rates for sample takers.
  • Continue to review patient satisfaction with the availability and punctuality of appointments, and consultations with the GPs.
  • Review the complaints response template.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

15th December 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

Following a comprehensive inspection of Dr K Anantha-Reddy’s Practice on 17 February 2016 the practice was given an overall rating of requires improvement. Specifically the practice was rated as inadequate for providing safe services, requires improvement for providing effective, caring and well-led services and good for providing responsive services. The provider was found to be in breach of three regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. The breaches related to shortfalls in the systems in place to keep people safe, the delivery of effective care and the governance arrangements at the practice.

We then carried out a comprehensive inspection of Dr K Anantha-Reddy’s Practice on 15 December 2016 to consider if the regulatory breaches from the previous inspection had been addressed and to assess what additional improvements had been made. At this inspection we found some evidence of improvement particularly in relation to the practice providing safe services, however further improvement was still necessary. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement with a continuing area of non-compliance with respect to demonstrating good governance.

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

  • There was a new system in place for reporting and recording significant events however it had not been consistently implemented and not all staff were clear on the procedures.
  • Lessons were shared to make sure action was taken to improve safety in the practice.
  • There was no system in place to ensure safety alerts from the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) were received, disseminated to the clinicians and acted on.
  • Staff assessed needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance, although there was no system in place to disseminate and learn from updates in NICE guidance.
  • Data showed patient outcomes were below average compared to local and national figures although there had been some improvement since our previous inspection.
  • Clinical audit was limited however it did demonstrate some quality improvement.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • The majority of patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect.
  • Information about services was available and easy to understand and accessible.
  • The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity, but some were overdue a review and some key policies were missing.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Review systems and processes to ensure safety alerts from the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) are disseminated and acted on, significant events are managed consistently and updates in evidence based guidance including the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) are disseminated and learning shared.
  • Review and update all policies and procedures.

In addition the provider should:

  • Continue to identify and support more patients who are also carers.
  • Continue to improve Quality and Outcomes Framework performance to bring in line with local and national averages.
  • Consider ways to reduce exception reporting for cervical screening.
  • Improve breast and bowel cancer screening rates to bring in line with local and national averages.
  • Address the lack of GP provision for gender specific requests.
  • Develop the patient participation group and proactively recruit new members.
  • Develop a program of quality improvement including clinical audit to drive improvements in patient outcomes.
  • Continue to improve services based on patient feedback.
  • Maintain an audit trail for the cleaning of privacy curtains in the consultation rooms.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr K Anantha-Reddy's Practice, also known as Yeading Court Surgery, on 17 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

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.
  • Risks to patients were not assessed or well managed. For example, those relating to staff training, health and safety, the safe handling and storage of liquid nitrogen, and fire safety.
  • Although infection control risks had been assessed, the systems and processes to address these risks were not implemented well enough to ensure patients were kept safe.
  • There was evidence of appraisals and personal development plans for staff. However, some staff had not received training specific to their roles.
  • Data showed patient outcomes were low compared to the locality and nationally.
  • Audits had been carried out to demonstrate quality improvement.
  • Patients were positive about their interactions with staff and said they were treated with compassion and dignity. However, the national GP patient survey showed satisfaction scores for consultations with the GPs were below local and national averages.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Urgent appointments were usually available on the day they were requested.
  • The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity, but some were overdue a review.
  • The practice had sought feedback from patients and had an active patient participation group.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure risk assessments related to fire safety, health and safety, and business continuity are reviewed, and action is taken to ensure patients are kept safe.

  • Ensure staff receive training to enable them to undertake their role, including training in safeguarding children and vulnerable adults, infection prevention and control, and chaperoning.

  • Ensure governance arrangements are in place to: address the areas for improvement identified in the infection control audits; review performance data and take action to improve patient outcomes; review patient feedback and ensure continuous improvement relating to how patients felt they were treated by the GPs.

In addition the provider should:

  • Review the access arrangements for wheelchair users.

  • Consider GP provision for gender specific GP requests.

  • Ensure the practice actively identifies patients who are also carers.

  • Advertise that translation services are available to patients on request.

  • Maintain a record of decisions and actions arising from practice meetings.

  • Review and update procedures and guidance.

  • Ensure staff are aware of the vision and strategy for the practice and involve them in making improvements on how the practice is run.

Where a practice is rated as inadequate for one of the five key questions or one of the six population groups the practice will be re-inspected within six months after the report is published. If, after re-inspection, the practice has failed to make sufficient improvement, and is still rated as inadequate for any key question or population group, we will place the practice into special measures. Being placed into special measures represents a decision by CQC that a practice has to improve within six months to avoid CQC taking steps to cancel the provider’s registration.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

 

 

Latest Additions: