The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Dr Alagu Rajkumar

Overall: Outstanding read more about inspection ratings

Orford Jubilee Park, Jubilee Way, Warrington, Cheshire, WA2 8HE (01925) 843883

Provided and run by:
Dr Alagu Rajkumar

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

29 June 2022, 30 June 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection at Dr Alagu Rajkumar, also known as The Eric Moore Partnership, on 29 and 30 June 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as outstanding with the following key question ratings:

Safe - good

Effective – good

Caring – good

Responsive - outstanding

Well-led - outstanding

Following our previous inspection on 19 April 2016 the practice was rated as good overall good for providing safe, caring, effective and well-led services. It was rated as outstanding for providing responsive services.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Alagu Rajkumar on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a planned comprehensive inspection and carried out as part of our inspection programme.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • Gathering feedback from patients
  • A short site visit

Our findings

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

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • There was a good working relationship with the Patient Participation Group (PPG), which supported the practice with patient interaction and improving service delivery.
  • The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
  • Staff at all levels were encouraged to speak up and raise concerns.
  • There was a proactive approach to understanding the needs and preferences of different groups of people and to delivering care in a way which meets those needs, which was accessible and promoted equality.
  • Services were developed with the full participation of those who use them, staff and external partners.
  • Staff who worked at the practice were consistently positive about teamwork; being involved in decision making; and being supported to carry out their roles.

The practice is rated outstanding because:

  • Services were tailored to meet the needs of individual people and were delivered in a way to ensure flexibility, choice and continuity of care.
  • The practice had identified areas where there were gaps in provision locally and had taken steps to address them, particularly through their work with vulnerable patient groups.
  • The practice proactively assessed and reviewed the needs of its patient population and adjusted its workforce and appointment system accordingly.
  • The features which had been identified as contributing to the outstanding rating for responsive at the previous inspection had continued to evolve and strengthen in the intervening five-year period.
  • There was evidence of external networking at local, regional and national level. This helped to drive internal improvements and facilitated the sharing of best practice and improved care to patients, particularly those whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.
  • The service took a leadership role in its health system to identify and proactively address challenges and meet the needs of the patient population. The provider participated in research projects and used internal audit and quality improvement programs to review and improve care and treatment. There was a focus on sharing the work of the practice locally and nationally as well as a shared commitment at all levels to learn from others.

The provider should:

  • Continue to promote uptake of cervical screening and childhood immunisations.
  • Continue to review patients on repeat medicines as required.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

19/04/2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Alagu Rajkumar on 19 April 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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. Significant events had been investigated and action had been taken as a result of the learning from events.
  • Systems were in place to deal with medical emergencies and all staff were trained in basic life support.
  • There were systems in place to reduce risks to patient safety. For example, infection control practices were good and there were regular checks on the environment and on equipment used.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • Data showed that outcomes for patients at this practice were similar to outcomes for patients locally and nationally.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Staff felt well supported in their roles and were kept up to date with appropriate training.

  • Feedback from patients about the care and treatment they received was very positive.

  • Patients said they were treated with dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
  • Patients told us they found it easy to get an appointment. This included urgent and routine appointments.
  • The practice had good facilities, including disabled access. It was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Complaints had been investigated and responded to in a timely manner.
  • The practice had a clear vision to provide a safe and high quality service.
  • There was a clear leadership and staffing structure and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.
  • The practice provided a range of enhanced services to meet the needs of the local population.
  • The practice sought patient views about improvements that could be made to the service. This included the practice having and consulting with a patient participation group (PPG).

We saw areas of outstanding practice including:

  • Nurse practitioners visited patients in a large nursing home on a daily basis to provide clinical oversight of the residents. This was supported by regular GP visits and oversight. This resulted in a decrease in unplanned hospital admissions for the residents. Nurse practitioners had also provided training to staff to enable them to support residents with some of their health related needs.

  • The practice provided primary care to homeless people in central Warrington. An ‘outreach nurse’ and other designated leads (including a lead GP) were designated to support homeless patients. This work was set up following engagement with homeless people and some of the local agencies supporting homeless people. The practice worked alongside other agencies to provide the service which had resulted in greater uptake of screening and treatment for these vulnerable patients and avoidance of attendance at A&E.

  • A patient co-ordinator made regular contact with older or housebound patients who had not had any other form of contact with the practice. They used a screening tool as part of this to establish if there was any cause for concern for the patient’s health.

  • The practice had established a group of Polish and Kurdish speaking volunteers to support new patients in response to an increase in patients from Eastern Europe. They had also established a working group with the Clinincal Commissioning Group (CCG) and Local Authority with an aim to address social isolation amongst this group.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice