- GP practice
Archived: Dr Sunil Mayor Also known as Bath Road Surgery
All Inspections
24 November 2016
During an inspection looking at part of the service
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Dr Sunil Mayor's practice at Bath Road Surgery on 8 January 2016. At that inspection we found the practice was meeting all legal requirements but we rated the practice as 'requires improvement' overall and for the key questions of whether the practice was caring and well-led. Specifically:
- We found that practice should improve aspects of the patient experience. In particular, the practice should enable patients to have reasonable access to their preferred GP.
- At the time of the last inspection, the practice had made significant changes to its systems and processes and had recently recruited several members of staff. We found that the practice needed more time to be able to demonstrate that new policy and practice was fully embedded and to ensure that improvements to the service were sustained.
The previous inspection reports for this practice can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Sunil Mayor on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
We undertook this focused inspection to assess whether the practice was acting on these areas and had effective systems of self governance. The inspection included a visit to the practice on 24 November 2016. This report covers our findings from this focused inspection.
Our key findings across the areas we inspected were as follows:
- The practice was providing a caring service. The practice recognised the value of providing continuity of care and were increasingly enabling patients to see their preferred GP.
- The practice had visible leadership, a strategic approach to improvement and effective systems of governance. The practice staff worked well together as a team and with other health and social services professionals and bodies.
- The practice demonstrated sustained and continued improvements in its performance since our previous inspection, for example in relation to the management of long term mental health and diabetic control.
Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice
8 January 2016
During a routine inspection
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Dr Sunil Mayor on 8 January
2016. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.
We found that improvements had been made since the previous inspection of January and February 2015 when the practice was rated as inadequate and placed into ‘special measures’. The practice was meeting the regulations which it had previously breached.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
- The GP principal, practice manager and the staff had worked hard to undertake a complete review of the service, make many improvements and creating an open team culture.
- There was a positive, transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
- Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
- Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
- There was mixed patient feedback about the practice. The national GP patient survey results tended to score below average for questions asking about care and concern. The feedback we received from patients was wholly positive.
- Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
- Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP. Urgent appointments were available the same day.
- The practice had taken steps to improve continuity of care for patients.
- The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
- The practice was developing its leadership structure and staff felt supported by management through this process. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
- On being placed in special measures the practice had sought external advice and support and had engaged positively to improve its service.
The areas where the provider should make improvements are:
- Work on fully embedding new policy and practice and the shift to collaborative team working to ensure improvement is sustained.
- Demonstrate how the practice is supporting patients with serious mental illness, for example through coordinated care planning.
- Provide more information about accessible mental health support services in Hounslow in the waiting area.
- Improve patient experience in particular that patients report having reasonable access to their preferred GP and improved involvement in decisions about their care.
I am taking this service out of special measures. This recognises the significant improvements made to the quality of care provided by this service.
Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)
Chief Inspector of General Practice
8 January & 3 February 2015
During a routine inspection
Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Sunil Mayor on 8 January and a follow up visit on 3 February 2015. Two visits were carried out as the second of these was to assess compliance with a previously issued Warning Notice. Overall the practice is rated as Inadequate.
Specifically, we found the practice inadequate for providing safe, effective and well-led services. It was also inadequate for providing services for the Older people, People with long-term conditions, Families, children and young people, Working age people (including those recently retired and students), People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable and People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). It required improvement for providing a caring and responsive service.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
- Patients were at risk of harm because systems and processes were not in place to keep them safe. For example patient test results were not actioned in a timely manner.
- The practice had ineffective leadership structure, insufficient leadership capacity and limited formal governance arrangements.
- Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses.
- Data showed a number of patient outcomes were at or slightly below average for the locality.
- Patients said they were usually able to get same day urgent appointments, however the practice lacked continuity of care and it was difficult to make an appointment with a GP of their choice.
- Most patients felt 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 however not all patients were aware how to complain, and not all staff were aware the practice had a complaints book .
- The practice held regular practice meetings for non-clinical staff, however there were no regular meetings involving clinical staff.
The areas where the provider must make improvements are:
- Clarify the leadership structure and ensure there is leadership capacity to deliver all improvements.
- Ensure patient test results are actioned in a timely manner, and all letters received by the practice relating to patient care are seen by a GP.
- Ensure vulnerable patients, such as those with mental illness or learning disabilities are offered an annual health check.
- Ensure clinical audit cycles are completed and are used to drive improvements in patient care.
- Ensure the practice assesses the risk of, and takes steps to prevent, detect and control the spread of, infections, including providing access to hand washing facilities where tests which carry a high risk of infection are carried out;carrying out infection prevention and control audits; providing in date sterile gloves, ensuring single use equipment is only used once, and ensuring sharps bins are appropriately stored.
- Ensure the proper and safe management of medicines including appropriately signed Patient Group Direction; sufficient quantities of emergency medicines and staff awareness of where these are stored; and that staff responsible for medicine refrigerator temperature checks know what action to take should the thermometer read under or over the recommended temperature.
- Ensure all staff receive training appropriate to their role; that they are enabled to review and understand key policies and procedures such as the whistleblowing policy and induction policy, and they receive appropriate support, professional development, supervision and appraisal.
- Ensure all clinical staff are given the opportunity to be involved in practice meetings for their own support and development, receive relevant practice information including clinical updates and contribute to the improvement of patient care.
- Ensure recruitment practices comply with the regulations.
In addition the provider should:
- Introduce a system for the review of data from audits and QOF to support learning and promote development of the practice.
- Ensure all patients identified as in need of an annual health check are offered one.
- Formalise plans to address patient concerns regarding continuity of care.
- Ensure all repeat prescription requests can be audit trailed for as long as the prescription remains uncollected.
- Implement a system for recording the serial numbers of blank prescription forms issued to which GPs to ensure there is an appropriate audit trail.
- Develop and implement a patient consent policy.
- Translate key information into the prevalent language for the practice population.
- Ensure information on how to complain is easily accessible for patients and that all staff are aware of the complaints book.
- Ensure patient confidentiality is protected by ensuring patients cannot be overheard during treatment and / or consultations.
- Include safeguarding as a standing agenda item for practice meetings.
- Ensure patients are made fully aware of the out of hours service, and information on the out of hours service is consistent across the practice leaflet, website and telephone answer message.
Where, as in this instance, a provider is rated as inadequate for one of the five key questions or one of the six population groups it will be re-inspected no longer than six months after the initial rating is confirmed. If, after re-inspection, it has failed to make sufficient improvement, and is still rated as inadequate for any key question or population group, we will place it into special measures. Being placed into special measures represents a decision by CQC that a service has to improve within six months to avoid CQC taking steps to cancel the provider’s registration.
On the basis of the ratings given to this practice at these inspections, I am placing the provider into special measures. This will be for a period of six months. We will inspect the practice again in six months to consider whether sufficient improvements have been made. If we find that the provider is still providing inadequate care we will take steps to cancel its registration with CQC.
Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)
Chief Inspector of General Practice
18 September 2014
During an inspection in response to concerns
We conducted an inspection to check that the practice was complying with relevant standards and legislation. We found that the practice was managing medicines appropriately. The practice did not have any controlled drugs on the premises and there were no concerns about prescribing patterns or the way in which the practice stored vaccines and medicines.
The practice had recruitment processes in place and checked that new members of staff had the right to work in the UK. However we found that the practice did not always check new staff members' references. The practice obtained Disclosure and Barring Service checks for all clinical staff members but it had not done so for administrative staff who occasionally acted as chaperones.
During the course of the inspection we reviewed the practice's systems for identifying risk and monitoring the quality of the service. We found that although the practice had a system for reviewing significant events, this did not result in effective action to prevent reoccurrence. The practice quality assurance systems also did not prompt staff to ensure that appropriate follow up action was taken, for example, by referring concerns to other statutory agencies.