Dr Uday Kanitkar, Leyland.

Dr Uday Kanitkar in Leyland is a Doctors/GP specialising in the provision of services relating to diagnostic and screening procedures, maternity and midwifery services, services for everyone, surgical procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 18th January 2018

Dr Uday Kanitkar is managed by Dr Uday Kanitkar.

Contact Details:

Address: Dr Uday Kanitkar 16 Moss Side Way Leyland PR26 7XL United Kingdom Telephone: 01772623954 Website: http://www.mosssidemedicalcentre.com

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Further Details:

Important Dates:

Last Inspection		2018-01-18
Last Published		2018-01-18

Local Authority:

Lancashire

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.

15th December 2017 - During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection June 2016 – Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

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 – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

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

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Uday Kanitkar’s practice on 15 December 2017 as part of our inspection programme to inspect 10% of practices before April 2018 that were rated Good in our previous inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

• 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. We saw however that some incidents were not always recorded using the significant event reporting form. This meant that actions taken were not always reviewed as part of the significant event process.
• There were risk assessments in place to help manage risk although we noted that the premises risk assessment for legionella needed updating. (Legionella is a term for a particular bacterium which can contaminate water systems in buildings.)
• Staff were supported in personal development and training and received regular appraisal.
• The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines. We saw that clinical audit was carried out although there was no formal regular audit of non-medical prescribing.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
• There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Update the legionella risk assessment for the building to include the additional patient treatment rooms.
• Consider reviewing the criteria for reporting significant events.
• Look to implement a system for formal audit of non-medical prescribing.
• Continue to take steps to identify patients on the practice list who are also carers.
• Review hard copies of practice policies and procedures to ensure that they are all up-to-date.
• Consider formal documentation of clinical meetings in order to share learning.
• Review the practice complaint reporting procedure in order to ensure that the practice policy is followed.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

17th June 2016 - During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection June 2016 – Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

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 – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

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

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Uday Kanitkar’s practice on 15 December 2017 as part of our inspection programme to inspect 10% of practices before April 2018 that were rated Good in our previous inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

• 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. We saw however that some incidents were not always recorded using the significant event reporting form. This meant that actions taken were not always reviewed as part of the significant event process.
• There were risk assessments in place to help manage risk although we noted that the premises risk assessment for legionella needed updating. (Legionella is a term for a particular bacterium which can contaminate water systems in buildings.)
• Staff were supported in personal development and training and received regular appraisal.
• The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines. We saw that clinical audit was carried out although there was no formal regular audit of non-medical prescribing.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
• There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Update the legionella risk assessment for the building to include the additional patient treatment rooms.
• Consider reviewing the criteria for reporting significant events.
• Look to implement a system for formal audit of non-medical prescribing.
• Continue to take steps to identify patients on the practice list who are also carers.
• Review hard copies of practice policies and procedures to ensure that they are all up-to-date.
• Consider formal documentation of clinical meetings in order to share learning.
• Review the practice complaint reporting procedure in order to ensure that the practice policy is followed.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice