We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr Bhupendra Modi on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Dr Bhupendra Modi, you can give feedback on this service.
We carried out an announced desk based follow up inspection on 25 April 2016 to follow up concerns we found at Dr Bhupendra Modi on 24 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Bhupendra Modi on 24 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
There was an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events and staff were aware how to report an incident.
Safety alerts were distributed to all staff who signed to state they had read the alert and acted on them as necessary, however these were not discussed at practice meetings.
Staff were knowledgeable about the actions they would take if they had any safeguarding concerns.
There were embedded systems in relation to obtaining, prescribing, recording, handling, storing and security of medicines.
Most risks to patients were assessed and well managed, however the practice had not carried out a legionella risk assessment. Following the inspection, the practice confirmed a date had been arranged with an external contractor to carry out this risk assessment.
New guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) were discussed between the GP and registrar and documented. However, this did not include any changes made to practice as a result.
The practice had templates set up on the patient record system which supported planning of patient care with specific long-term conditions.
Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment and there was evidence of appraisals and personal development plans for all staff.
Staff worked with multidisciplinary teams to understand and meet the range and complexity of patients’ needs.
Patients said they were treated with dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
We saw staff were polite and professional, they treated patients with kindness and respect, and maintained patient confidentiality.
A GP partner attended locality meetings to assist with the review of the local population and engaged with the NHS England Area Team and Clinical Commissioning Group to secure improvements to services where these were identified.
Patients told us they found it easy to make an appointment.
Information about how to complain was available in the patient waiting area. Learning from complaints had been identified and the practice manager was taking action around the main theme.
There was a clear vision with aims and objectives that all staff were aware of and could reflect on.
Practice specific policies were implemented and were available to all staff.
A programme of continuous clinical and internal audit was in place which was used to monitor quality and to make improvements.
There was a leadership structure in place and staff felt supported by management.
There was an active patient participation group which met on a regular basis. The practice acted on feedback from the group and also feedback from patients and staff.
The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour. The partners encouraged a culture of openness and honesty.
The area where the provider must make improvements are:
To ensure a legionella risk assessment is carried out and appropriate action is taken as necessary.
The areas where the provider should make improvements are:
Chief Inspector of General Practice