Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Suvajit Chatterjee Vernon Park Surgery on the 2 November 2016. At the inspection in November the overall rating for the practice was good, although the key question Safe was rated requires improvement. This was specifically in relation to recruitment procedures and the checks carried out to ensure the suitability of staff for their roles. We found there were gaps in the recruitment records of some staff. The practice did not maintain appropriate records to demonstrate that all recruited staff including some clinical staff had been appropriately vetted to ensure they were suitable and safe to work with vulnerable adults and children.

The full comprehensive report on the November 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Suvajit Chatterjee on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was a desk-based review carried out on the 23 February 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the one breach in regulation that we identified in our previous inspection on 2 November 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to that requirement. We did not request information for this desk top review about any progress the practice may have undertaken in responding to the areas we identified previously where the provider should take action.

The practice is now rated good for all key questions and the overall rating remains good.

Our key findings were as follows:

The practice submitted an action plan with timescales detailing how they intended to improve their recruitment and vetting procedures. They supplied us with evidence to confirm that all staff employed at the practice had been appropriately vetted, that disclosure and barring checks (DBS) were available for all staff, including locum clinical staff.

In addition the practice updated their recruitment policy and developed and implemented a risk assessment in response to concerns identified following a DBS check.

At our previous inspection on 2 November 2016 we identified the following areas that the provider should take action on:

• Develop and strengthen governance arrangements by ensuring written records of all informal meetings, audits and checks carried out are maintained.
• Review the practice management arrangements to provide opportunities to reflect on past and current achievements and plan more effectively the future direction of the GP service.
• Review the access and availability of clinical polices to support clinical staff practice.
• Continue to promote, develop and facilitate a patient participation group to provide feedback about the service provided by the practice.
• Pursue with the CCG the funding for the development and refurbishment of the GP practice.

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 Suvajit Chatterjee Vernon Park Surgery on the 2 November 2016. At the inspection in November the overall rating for the practice was good, although the key question Safe was rated requires improvement. This was specifically in relation to recruitment procedures and the checks carried out to ensure the suitability of staff for their roles. We found there were gaps in the recruitment records of some staff. The practice did not maintain appropriate records to demonstrate that all recruited staff including some clinical staff had been appropriately vetted to ensure they were suitable and safe to work with vulnerable adults and children.

The full comprehensive report on the November 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Suvajit Chatterjee on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was a desk-based review carried out on the 23 February 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the one breach in regulation that we identified in our previous inspection on 2 November 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to that requirement. We did not request information for this desk top review about any progress the practice may have undertaken in responding to the areas we identified previously where the provider should take action.

The practice is now rated good for all key questions and the overall rating remains good.

Our key findings were as follows:

The practice submitted an action plan with timescales detailing how they intended to improve their recruitment and vetting procedures. They supplied us with evidence to confirm that all staff employed at the practice had been appropriately vetted, that disclosure and barring checks (DBS) were available for all staff, including locum clinical staff.

In addition the practice updated their recruitment policy and developed and implemented a risk assessment in response to concerns identified following a DBS check.

At our previous inspection on 2 November 2016 we identified the following areas that the provider should take action on:

• Develop and strengthen governance arrangements by ensuring written records of all informal meetings, audits and checks carried out are maintained.
• Review the practice management arrangements to provide opportunities to reflect on past and current achievements and plan more effectively the future direction of the GP service.
• Review the access and availability of clinical polices to support clinical staff practice.
• Continue to promote, develop and facilitate a patient participation group to provide feedback about the service provided by the practice.
• Pursue with the CCG the funding for the development and refurbishment of the GP practice.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

We found the practice was within an old house that had been adapted to accommodate the GP and an on-site pharmacy. Consulting rooms were available on two floors. Staff took into account mobility when they planned appointments with the practice nurse as she was based on the second floor and always asked patients if they could manage stairs. If there was a problem then appointments were given at alternative times when access to a consulting room on the ground floor could be assured.

We found there was a practice leaflet and a practice face book site which gave information on the practice to patients.

We were able to speak with two patients of Dr Chatterjee’s as there was an open surgery and it was quiet. The surgery reception was located away from the main waiting area and a private room was available if required. The waiting room had notice boards and leaflets informing patients of services available and how to promote a healthy lifestyle.

The practice has a ‘buddy’ system between its GP and specific GP’s in the neighbouring practice to supporting each other. This ensured that there was an element of continuity in care if the GP they were registered with was on leave. One patient we spoke with told us; “It is always very easy to get an appointment when you need one.” The practice declared non compliance to regulations 1, 2, 7, 12 and 14 on registration. We found the practice to have completed their action plan and now be compliant with the outcomes.