Archived: Dr Iftikhar Ali Also known as Halfway Surgery

Updated 1 December 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Iftikhar Ali on 26 January 2016. Breaches of the legal requirements were found.

• The practice had been unable to demonstrate all appropriate recruitment checks had been undertaken prior to directly employing locum GPs.

• The practice was unable to demonstrate they had a system for the routine management, testing and investigation of legionella (a germ found in the environment which can contaminate water systems in buildings).

• The practice was unable to demonstrate they were able to respond to a medical emergency, in line with national guidance, before the arrival of an ambulance.

• Although the practice carried out clinical audits, they were unable to demonstrate how these were driving quality improvement.

• The practice was unable to demonstrate that locum GPs employed directly were up to date with attending mandatory courses or had received annual appraisals.

• The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity. However, some were not dated so it was not clear when they were written or if they were up to date.

• The practice had been unable to demonstrate there was a programme of contunous clinical audit which was used to monitor quality and to make improvements.

• The practice had failed to identify or consider some potential risks. For example, the potential risk of infection from legionella in the building’s water system and the risks associated with failing to carry out all recruitment checks prior to the direct employment of locum GPs.

Following the comprehensive inspection, the practice wrote to us to tell us what they would do to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches.

We undertook this focussed inspection on 19 October 2016, to check that the practice had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met the legal requirements. At our focussed follow-up inspection on 19 October 2016, the practice provided records and information to demonstrate that the requirements had been met. 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 Iftikhar Ali on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

The areas where the practice should continue to make improvements are:

• Ensure further risk assessment is carried out to include all potential risks from legionella (a germ found in the environment which can contaminate water systems in buildings).

• Create a practice website.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 1 December 2016

At our previous comprehensive inspection on 26 January 2016 the practice had been rated as requires improvement for the care of people with long-term conditions. The provider had been rated as requires improvement for providing safe, effective and well-led services and good for providing caring and responsive services. The resulting overall rating applied to everyone using the practice, including this patient population group.

At our focussed follow-up inspection on 19 October 2016, the practice provided records and information to demonstrate that the legal requirements had been met. The provider is rated as good for providing safe, effective and well-led services. The resulting overall rating applies to everyone using the practice, including this patient population group.

Updated 1 December 2016

At our previous comprehensive inspection on 26 January 2016 the practice had been rated as requires improvement for the care of families, children and young people. The provider had been rated as requires improvement for providing safe, effective and well-led services and good for providing caring and responsive services. The resulting overall rating applied to everyone using the practice, including this patient population group.

At our focussed follow-up inspection on 19 October 2016, the practice provided records and information to demonstrate that the legal requirements had been met. The provider is rated as good for providing safe, effective and well-led services. The resulting overall rating applies to everyone using the practice, including this patient population group.

Updated 1 December 2016

At our previous comprehensive inspection on 26 January 2016 the practice had been rated as requires improvement for the care of older people. The provider had been rated as requires improvement for providing safe, effective and well-led services and good for providing caring and responsive services. The resulting overall rating applied to everyone using the practice, including this patient population group.

At our focussed follow-up inspection on 19 October 2016, the practice provided records and information to demonstrate that the legal requirements had been met. The provider is rated as good for providing safe, effective and well-led services. The resulting overall rating applies to everyone using the practice, including this patient population group.

Updated 1 December 2016

At our previous comprehensive inspection on 26 January 2016 the practice had been rated as requires improvement for the care of working age people (including those recently retired and students). The provider had been rated as requires improvement for providing safe, effective and well-led services and good for providing caring and responsive services. The resulting overall rating applied to everyone using the practice, including this patient population group.

At our focussed follow-up inspection on 19 October 2016, the practice provided records and information to demonstrate that the legal requirements had been met. The provider is rated as good for providing safe, effective and well-led services. The resulting overall rating applies to everyone using the practice, including this patient population group.

Updated 1 December 2016

At our previous comprehensive inspection on 26 January 2016 the practice had been rated as requires improvement for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). The provider had been rated as requires improvement for providing safe, effective and well-led services and good for providing caring and responsive services. The resulting overall rating applied to everyone using the practice, including this patient population group.

At our focussed follow-up inspection on 19 October 2016, the practice provided records and information to demonstrate that the legal requirements had been met. The provider is rated as good for providing safe, effective and well-led services. The resulting overall rating applies to everyone using the practice, including this patient population group.

Updated 1 December 2016

At our previous comprehensive inspection on 26 January 2016 the practice had been rated as requires improvement for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. The provider had been rated as requires improvement for providing safe, effective and well-led services and good for providing caring and responsive services. The resulting overall rating applied to everyone using the practice, including this patient population group.

At our focussed follow-up inspection on 19 October 2016, the practice provided records and information to demonstrate that the legal requirements had been met. The provider is rated as good for providing safe, effective and well-led services. The resulting overall rating applies to everyone using the practice, including this patient population group.