Archived: Dr D J Gandecha & Partners

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced desk based follow up inspection on 7 October 2016 to follow up concerns we found at Dr D J Gandecha & Partners on 5 April 2016. The ratings for the practice have been updated to reflect our findings following the improvements made since our last inspection in April 2016; the practice was now meeting the regulations that had previously been breached. At the inspection in April 2016 the practice was found to be requires improvement for providing safe services and for the care of people experiencing poor mental health. Following the most recent inspection we found that improvements had been made and that the practice was found to be good in providing safe services and for the care of people experiencing poor mental health. The overall rating of the practice did not change as the practice was previously rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

• The processes for the proper and safe of management of medicines had been strenghtened. For example, there was a process for monitoring the use of prescription forms and pads and a system for the legal authorisation of healthcare assistants to administer medicines in place.

• There was a process to check the ongoing registration status with the appropriate professional body for GPs and nurses

• Mental capacity act training had been completed by clinicians.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr D J Gandecha & Partners on 05 April 2016. Overall, the practice is rated as requires improvement.

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 lessons were shared to improve safety in the practice.

• Some of the processes for the proper and safe of management of medicines were not in place. For example, monitoring the use of prescription forms and pads and a system for the legal authorisation of healthcare assistants to administer medicines.

• There was no process to check the ongoing registration status with the appropriate professional body for GPs and nurses

• Most risks to patients were assessed and well managed, however risk assessments had not been carried out for control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH) products.

• Staff assessed needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.

• Staff had access to a range of mandatory training, which they had completed. However, in the practice there was no record of staff receiving training regarding the mental capacity act.

• Staff worked with other health care professionals to understand and meet the range and complexity of patients’ needs. Meeting minutes demonstrated a GP did not always attend the meetings.

• Patients said staff were helpful and respectful, they said GPs explained their care and treatment and involved them in decisions.

• We saw staff treated patients with kindness and respect, and maintained patient and information confidentiality.

• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.

• Results from the national GP patient survey showed that patients’ satisfaction with how they could access care and treatment was comparable to national averages.

• Patients told us they could make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care. They were aware urgent appointments were available the same day.

• The practice had an overarching governance framework, which supported the delivery of good quality care.

• There was a leadership structure and staff felt well supported by management.

• 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 practice sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on. The patient participation group was active.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

• Ensure the safe management and proper use of medicines, specifically regarding the authorisation for healthcare assistants to administer medicines.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Implementing a system to monitor the use of prescriptions.

• Maintain a record of ongoing registration with the appropriate professional bodies for clinical staff.

• Consider the range of mandatory training carried out to enable staff to provide appropriate care and treatment to people who may be suffering from poor mental health.

• Review the causes of high exception rate reporting to ensure patients receive appropriate care and treatment.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice