The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Prathap Jana Also known as Napier Road Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

151 Napier Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 4HH (01634) 580480

Provided and run by:
Dr Prathap Jana

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr Prathap Jana 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 Prathap Jana, you can give feedback on this service.

23 May 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focussed inspection at Dr Prathap Jana on 23 May 2023. The overall rating for the practice is good.

The ratings for each key question are:

Safe – good.

Effective – good.

Caring – good.

Responsive – good.

Well-led – good.

Following our inspection on 12 July 2022, the practice was rated requires improvement overall and for providing safe, effective and well-led services. The practice was rated as good for providing caring and responsive services. Requirement notices were issued for breaches of regulation found at this inspection.

The full reports for the July 2022 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Prathap Jana on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Why we carried out this inspection:

We carried out this inspection to follow up on breaches of regulation from our previous inspection.

How we carried out the inspection:

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included:

  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A site visit.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.

Our findings:

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • What we found when we inspected.
  • Information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services.
  • Information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

The practice is now rated as good overall.

We rated the practice as good for providing safe services because;

  • The provider had made improvements to the practice’s systems, practices and processes to help keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse.
  • The provider had taken action and made improvements to systems and processes to help maintain appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene.
  • Improvements had been made to the way risks to patients, staff and visitors were assessed, monitored and managed.
  • Staff had the information they needed to deliver safe care and treatment.
  • The provider had made improvements to the arrangements for managing medicines that helped keep patients safe.
  • Improvements had been made to the management of safety alerts.

We rated the practice as good for providing effective services because:

  • The provider had made improvements so that patients’ needs were assessed, and care as well as treatment was delivered in line with current legislation, standards and evidence-based guidance supported by clear pathways and tools.
  • Improvements had been made to the practice’s performance relating to cancer indicators.

We rated the practice as good for providing well-led services because:

  • Improvements had been made that supported good governance and management.
  • The provider had made improvements to the management of risks, issues and performance.
  • Patients had been recruited to an active Patient Participation Group.

Other findings:

  • The provider continued to deliver care and treatment in a way that was accessible to patients.
  • The practice’s complaints policy was now up to date as well as in line with recognised guidance and contractual obligations for GPs in England.
  • Written replies to complaints now contained details of the Ombudsman service.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Continue improving uptake of cervical screening by eligible patients.
  • Continue to make necessary changes to the provider registration with CQC.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence tables for further information.

12 July 2022

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Requires Improvement overall.

The key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Are services safe? – Requires Improvement

Are services effective? – Requires Improvement

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Requires Improvement

The full comprehensive report can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Prathap Jana on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Why we carried out this inspection:

We carried out an announced inspection at Dr Prathap Jana on 20 May 2022 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

How we carried out the inspection:

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • A short site visit

Our judgement of the quality of care at this service is based on a combination of what we found when we inspected, information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

Our findings:

We have rated this practice as Requires Improvement overall.

  • The practice’s systems, practices and processes did not always keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse.
  • Improvements were required to infection prevention and control systems and processes.
  • Risks to patients, staff and visitors were not always assessed, monitored or managed effectively.
  • The arrangements for managing medicines did not always keep patients safe.
  • Improvements were required to some types of patient reviews.
  • Performance in relation to some cancer screening required improvement.
  • Some governance documents we looked at were not up to date.
  • Processes for managing risks, issues and performance required improvement.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Consider revising practice systems to formally record the monitoring of patient referrals to other services under the two week wait system.
  • Consider revising practice systems to include reference to the ombudsman in the complaints policy.
  • Continue with plans to recruit patients to the practice’s Patient Participation Group (PPG).

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence tables for further information.

1 September 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Prathap Jana on 9 February 2016. Breaches of the legal requirements were found. 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 1 September 2016, to check that the practice had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met the 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 Prathap Jana 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).

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

9 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Prathap Jana on 9 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

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. However, the practice did not have systems that identified notifiable safety incidents.
  • All risks to patients were not always assessed and well managed.
  • Blank prescription forms were stored securely. However, the practice did not have a system to monitor their use.
  • 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.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • Data showed patient outcomes were better when compared to the locality and nationally.
  • The practice carried out clinical audits which were driving quality improvement.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment. However, the practice was unable to demonstrate that locum GPs employed directly by the practice were up to date with attending mandatory courses.
  • Staff told us that multidisciplinary team meeting took place on a regular basis. However, there were no records to confirm this.

  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.

  • Information about services was available.

  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and urgent appointments were usually available on the day they were requested.
  • Records of patient consultations were not always legible.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. However, governance arrangements were not always effectively implemented.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the Duty of Candour.
  • The practice had proactively sought feedback from patients and was in the process of recruiting patients to form a patient participation group.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure the practice has systems that identify notifiable safety incidents.

  • Ensure there is a system to monitor blank prescription forms.

  • Ensure recruitment arrangements include all necessary employment checks for all staff.

  • Ensure that all risks to patients are assessed and action taken to reduce risk where possible especially related to infection control and the informal arrangements for patients to be seen at another practice on Wednesday afternoons.

  • Ensure the practice is able to respond to a medical emergency in line with national guidance.

  • Ensure all staff are up to date with mandatory training.
  • Ensure records are maintained and legible for multidisciplinary meetings held and all patient consultations.

In addition the provider should:

  • Record domestic cleaning monitoring.

  • Consider revising the mix of staff to provide patients with the choice of seeing a female GP.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice