The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: Dr Sirri Surgery

336 St Ann's Road, London, N15 3TA (020) 8809 4414

Provided and run by:
Dr. Teoman Necati Sirri

All Inspections

05/04/2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 05 April 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Dr Sirri Surgery provides an independent healthcare service which offers medical examinations, consultation, advice, and counselling which patients pay for privately.

The staff team at the surgery included one male GP, a female practice nurse, a practice manager and a team of administrative staff (all working a mix of full time and part time hours).

On the day of the inspection we received twenty two Care Quality Commission (CQC) comment cards from patients of the surgery. All the cards were positive and most commented on the friendliness, efficiency and the professionalism of the staff. Several mentioned that they would recommend the surgery to a friend.

Our key findings were:

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the surgery learned from them and improved processes.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • Staff involved patients with their procedures and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with the GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The surgery 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 surgery proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • Policies and procedures had been thoroughly reviewed and applied.
  • Staff were valued and appropriately trained for their roles.
  • There was an increasing patient demand for the surgery from an increasing geographical area.

7 September 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

Dr Sirri Surgery is situated within NHS Haringey Clinical Commissioning Group. It provides an independent healthcare service which includes, offering medical examinations, consultation, advice, and counselling which patients pay for privately.

The staff team at the practice included one male GP, a female practice nurse, a practice manager and a team of administrative staff (all working a mix of full time and part time hours).

Dr Sirri Surgery was not an approved training practice for GP Registrars.

The practice was open between 10.00 and 18.00 Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and open between 10.00 and 13.00 on Tuesdays. Appointments were from 10.00 to 13.00 every morning and 15.00 to 18.00 daily. Extended hours surgeries were offered as requested by patients and the GP amended his daily working hours in response to the needs of his patients. In addition pre-bookable appointments could be booked up to two weeks in advance and urgent appointments were also available for people that needed them. An out of hours service was not provided and patients could access the local walk in centre or the local accident and emergency department.

The practice is registered with the Care Quality Commission to carry on the regulated activities of Treatment of disease, disorder or injury, Family planning, and Diagnostic and screening procedures.

We found that the service was providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations

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. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, with the exception of those relating to the availability of emergency oxygen.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • 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.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with the GP and that 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.

 

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

26 February 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This inspection was undertaken to look at the progress Dr Sirri's Surgery had made since we visited on 31 October 2012 and found that it was not meeting six standards. We found it was now meeting all of these standards.

On this visit we did not talk with people who were using the service. When we visited last time we spoke with two people, neither of whom raised any concerns with us about the care they had been receiving.

We found that care and treatment was now planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare.

There was evidence that people had been asked whether they wished to share information. When the patient had not wished to share this information this had been recorded.

We found that the provider had taken steps to ensure the correct procedures were in place for identifying potential abuse.

The surgery was now tidier and the provider had a clinical waste bin. At the time of our visit the provider did not have a formal contract in place for the disposal of clinical waste.

We found that arrangements for ensuring the safe management of medicines had improved. The provider now had the appropriate arrangements in place to ensure that people were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe management of medicines.

The provider had plans to have an external review undertaken. At the time of our visit this had not yet been undertaken.

31 October 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

When we visited the surgery we spoke to two patients. They both told us they were very happy with the service they had received from the doctor. One person told us they thought the doctor was 'better than a lot of GPs'. The other person told us that the doctor had been the first person to listen to them.

When we visited we found that people were able to express their views and were seen in privacy by the doctor.

There was no evidence that long-term substance misuse patients had treatment plans in place or were having regular reviews. It was also not always recorded whether their GPs had been contacted regarding their care.

The practice had no policy or procedure in place for protecting vulnerable adults.

The practice did not have appropriate systems in place to manage the risks of infection.

We found medicines were not kept safely and disposed of appropriately. When we visited we found large quantities of medicines, which were out of date and not stored appropriately. When we asked about these, the doctor told us these were for demonstration purposes only.

The practice had no system in place to monitor the quality of service it was providing.

6 July 2011

During a routine inspection

Comments people made to us included, 'I think the doctor is very good. He is kind, helpful, spends time listening to me and always does his best to help me.'

Comments in survey results we looked at included:

'I have full confidence in the doctor. I always feel very good after seeing the doctor.' 'I'm pleased that the doctor and secretaries speak multi-languages and are able to communicate well with the patients whose native language is not English.'

'The doctor always explains what is wrong with me; he shows me on the medical posters of the anatomy that are placed on the walls around his surgery or draws diagrams if necessary.'