Archived: Dr Priyanand Hallan Also known as Valhalla Clinic at Park House Surgery

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of Dr Hallan’s Surgery, also known as Park House Surgery on 20 October 2016. We had previously inspected this practice on 2 June 2015. As a result of that inspection the practice was rated as good overall and requires improvement for providing safe services. Following the inspection the practice wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the legal requirements.

As a period of 12 months had elapsed since the publication of the report we carried out a second comprehensive inspection of the practice and we also checked to see whether the improvements identified at the first inspection had been actioned.

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

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. Since the last inspection in June 2015, the practice had introduced a system to analyse significant events and incidents, these were documented and shared with staff.
• Effective recruitment procedures have been implemented since being identified at the comprehensive inspection in June 2015. This included undertaking Disclosure and Barring (DBS) checks for staff that required them.
• Systems had been put in place identified as an area of improvement at the last inspection, to ensure patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance.
• The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems, processes and practices in place to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse.
• The practice had implemented effective systems in the management of risks including infection control procedures.
• Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
• The practice had reviewed their current patient record system to ensure that read codes were being used appropriately.
• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• The practice worked closely with other organisations in planning how services were provided to ensure that they met patients’ needs.
• The building posed limitations with no parking, no disabled facilities and restricted space, but the practice had joined with two other local practices to purchase land and was planning on moving to new premises in the near future.
• The practice actively reviewed complaints and how they were managed and responded to, and made improvements as a result. The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt they were supported by the practice manager and GP. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

There are areas where the provider should make improvements:

• Improve the system for the identification of patients who are carers and provide them with appropriate support.
• Maximise the functionality of the computer system in order that the practice can run clinical searches, provide assurance around patient recall systems, consistently code patient groups and produce accurate performance data.
• Ensure the risk assessment for not having a defibrillator in place is effective in mitigating risks.

• Continuously monitor the availability of emergency medicines to ensure sufficient quantities are available when required.

• Continue to review patient satisfaction scores to ensure patients' needs are being met.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice