Archived: Dr Satya Kacker Also known as Broom Valley Medical Centre

Updated 11 April 2017

Dr Satya Kacker’s practice, or Broom Valley Medical Centre as it is known locally, is located in the Broom Valley area of Rotherham. The practice is part of Rotherham Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and is responsible for providing services for 1,815 patients under the personal medical services (PMS) contract with NHS England. The practice catchment area is classed as within the group of the third more deprived areas in England. The age profile of the practice population differs slightly to other GP practices in the Rotherham CCG area. It has a larger number of male patients aged from birth to nine years old and 35 to 39 years old and a higher number of females from five to 14 years old registered at the practice.

The practice has one female GP who works eight sessions per week and male locum GP who works four sessions per week. They are supported by a practice nurse, a senior receptionist, three receptionists and a practice manager. Two health trainers hold weekly clinics at the practice to support patients.

The practice is open from 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday. 

The practice is located in a converted commercial building with accessible facilities and on road parking to the front of the premises.

Updated 11 April 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Satya Kacker on 2 June 2015. The overall rating for the practice was good with requires improvement for being safe. The full comprehensive report from June 2015 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for 'Dr Satya Kacker' on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 9 March 2017 to confirm that the practice had addressed the areas for improvement recommended in our previous inspection on 2 June 2015. This report covers our findings in relation to those improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows: 

• There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
• The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety.
• Clinical audits demonstrated quality improvement.
• There was evidence of appraisals and personal development plans for all staff.
• The practice now had access to telephone interpretation services  for patients who did not have English as a first language. We saw notices in the reception areas informing patients this service was available. Patients were also told about multi-lingual staff who might be able to support them.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 20 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long term conditions. The GP led in chronic disease management supported by a member of the administrative team to arrange patient appointments and referrals to other services. Patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority. Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed. All these patients had a named GP and a structured six monthly review to check their health and medication needs were being met. For those people with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Updated 20 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people. There were systems in place to identify and follow up children living in disadvantaged circumstances and who were at risk, for example, children and young people who had a high number of A&E attendances. Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations. Patients told us children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals, and we saw evidence to confirm this, Appointments were available for children under the age of five on the same day and outside of school hours.  The premises were suitable for children and babies. We saw good examples of joint working with midwives, health visitors and school nurses. The practice held an open afternoon once a year for local school children to attend. The practice used this event to promote healthy living and to provide aspiration and inspiration for pupils to consider future employment in the health sector.

Updated 20 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people. Nationally reported data showed outcomes for patients were good for conditions commonly found in older people. The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population and had a range of enhanced services, for example, in dementia and end of life care. It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and rapid access appointments for those with enhanced needs. Those over 75 were offered a six monthly review to check their health and medication needs were being met.

Updated 20 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of working age people (including those recently retired and students). The needs of the working age population, those recently retired and students had been identified and the practice had adjusted the services it offered to ensure these were accessible, flexible and offered continuity of care. The practice was proactive in offering online services as well as a full range of health promotion and screening reflects the needs for this age group.

Updated 20 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). Of people experiencing poor mental health, 84% had received an annual physical health check. The practice regularly worked with multidisciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia. It carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia.

The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations. It had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency (A&E) whilst they may have been experiencing poor mental health. Staff had received training on how to care for people with mental health needs and dementia. A mental health practitioner held a clinic at the practice once a week.

Updated 20 August 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including those with a learning disability. It had carried out annual health checks for people with a learning disability and all of these patients had received a follow-up. It offered longer appointments for people with a learning disability.

The practice regularly worked with multidisciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people. It had told vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations. Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in vulnerable adults and children. Staff were aware of their responsibilities regarding information sharing, documentation of safeguarding concerns and how to contact relevant agencies in normal working hours and out of hours.