• Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Dr Sarman Bapodra

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

13 Loughborough Road, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE4 5LJ (0116) 266 3653

Provided and run by:
Dr Sarman Bapodra

All Inspections

8 October 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of this practice on 20 January 2015. Overall the practice was rated as requires improvement. Breaches of legal requirements were found. After the comprehensive inspection, the practice wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the legal requirements in relation to the effectiveness and leadership of the practice.

We undertook this focussed inspection to check that they had followed their improvement plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Sampora Bapodra – Belgrave Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

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

  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed. Since our last inspection the practice had carried out various risk assessments including general health and safety, legionella and fire. Policies had been implemented for chaperone procedures, cold chain, infection control and medicines management.
  • The practice had implemented a clear audit programme with full cycle audits to improve the quality of patient outcomes.
  • The practice had implemented regular multi-disciplinary meetings to discuss the needs of complex patients, for example those with end of life care.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • 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. Staff were invited to attend regular meetings such as practice, clinical, team and patient participation group (PPG) meetings.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

20 January 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

REQUIRES IMPROVEMENT

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Sarman Bapodra – Belgrave Surgery on 20 January 2015. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

Specifically, we found the practice to require improvement for providing effective and well led services. It also required improvement for providing services for all the population groups. It was good for providing a safe, responsive and caring service.

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.
  • Patients rated the overall experience of the practice as excellent. Urgent appointments were usually available on the day they were requested.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • The practice had effective communication and good teamwork.
  • Although some audits had been carried out, we saw no evidence that audits were driving improvement in performance to improve patient outcomes.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • The practice had not proactively sought feedback from staff or patients.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Put in place an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service provided by the practice.
  • Ensure risks to patients are assessed and well managed. For example, risk assessments for, general office environment, control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH), use of a chaperone and infection control.
  • Ensure there are mechanisms in place to seek feedback from staff and patients and this feedback is responded to.
  • Ensure there are formal governance arrangements in place and staff are aware how these operate.
  • Ensure staff have appropriate policies and guidance in place to carry out their role in a safe and effective manner which are reflective of the requirements of the practice. For example, a cold chain policy for ensuring that medicines are kept at the required temperatures, and describes the action to take in the event of a potential failure. There was no policy for repeat prescribing or shared care protocols with secondary care.
  • Ensure audits of practice are undertaken, including completed clinical audit cycles.

In addition the provider should:

  • Have full practice meetings which include the long term locums. The meeting should be regular, structured and relevant to give all staff the opportunity to take part in order for performance, quality and risk to be discussed.
  • Have in place a robust infection control policy to provide staff with guidance.
  • Have a process in place for staff to receive infection control training and education identified in the 2014 infection control audit.
  • Disseminate national safety patient alerts (NPSA) to all staff.
  • Carry out regular water checks to reduce the risk of legionella as identified in the legionella risk assessment.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

20 May 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This inspection was carried out to see if improvements had been made following our inspection of 15 October 2013.

During this inspection, we spoke with the provider, business manager and practice manager. We also spoke with four members of staff. We did not speak with patients using the service.

We found the provider had arrangements in place to ensure that patients received appropriate care, treatment and support, in the event of a medical emergency occurring. Equipment was available, including a defibrillator and oxygen, for use in a medical emergency.

The provider had an effective system in place to ensure that the premises were kept clean to minimise the risk of infection. We found improvements had been made to the d'cor of the premises and new cleaning arrangements were in place.

We found a new recruitment policy had been implemented. The provider had undertaken the required recruitment checks on members of staff working at the practice.

The provider had an effective system in place for monitoring the quality of the service provided. We saw a range of audits, with action the provider had taken. We found the provider had a system in place to ensure staff regularly attended training relevant to their role, and such training was recorded and updated regularly.

15 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four patients, the GP, the nurse practitioner, two reception staff and the practice manager during our visit of the surgery. Patients told us they were satisfied with the care and treatment they received and with the availability and length of appointments.

We saw that patients' views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and that they were treated with dignity and respect. Comments about the service included 'All my family come to this surgery and we are happy with the service.' Another person said 'He is a lovely doctor.' And another said 'The reception staff and doctor always have a smile.'

We found staff had a good knowledge and awareness of information and reporting around the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults.

Certain items of emergency equipment were missing so the practice could not ensure peoples' safety in an emergency situation.

The provider did not have appropraite systems in place for recruiting staff and monitoring the quality of service provision.

We felt the building provided good access for patients with mobility problems, however the reception desk was not well planned to aid communication with this group of patients.