The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Drs Leung, Mallick, Sherrell & Hobbs

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

60 Forest Road, Bordon, Hampshire, GU35 0PB (01420) 477975

Provided and run by:
Drs Leung, Mallick, Sherrell & Hobbs

Important: We are carrying out a review of quality at Drs Leung, Mallick, Sherrell & Hobbs. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

All Inspections

12 July 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Drs Leung, Gregson, Mallick, Sherrell & Mrs Hazeldine better known as Forest & Badgerswood Surgery between 10 – 12 July. Overall, the practice is rated as Inadequate.

Safe - Inadequate

Effective - Inadequate

Responsive – Requires Improvement

Well-led – Inadequate

Following our previous inspection on 10 August 2016, the practice was rated Good overall and for all key questions.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Drs Leung, Gregson, Mallick, Sherrell & Mrs Hazeldine on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out a focused inspection undertaking a site visit and remote clinical searches to review:

  • Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led key questions
  • Concerns identified during routine monitoring activity.

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:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • Obtaining feedback from external stakeholders.
  • A short site visit.
  • Staff feedback surveys.

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 and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We found that:

  • The practice provided care that did not keep patients safe and placed patients at high risk of avoidable harm. In particular, high-risk medicines were not always monitored and safety alerts were not appropriately actioned.
  • Patients received ineffective care and treatment that did not meet their needs. In particular, staff did not always follow evidence-based guidance when providing treatment and care for patients. Patients with long-term conditions were not always monitored in line with national guidance.
  • Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • Governance processes were not always in place to ensure oversight of risk management was embedded. In particular, there were a lack of arrangements to ensure non-medical prescribers had a mechanism to raise treatment findings, concerns and clinical areas outside of scope of practice, which increased the risk of incidents occurring due to the lack of support. Oversight of mandatory training was not effective to ensure all staff completed the required training. Actions had not been taken to mitigate concerns identified within fire risk assessments.

We found breaches of regulations. The provider must:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Oversight of systems and processes must be established and operated effectively to ensure compliance with the requirements of the fundamental standards.
  • Ensure recruitment procedures are established and operated effectively to ensure only fit and proper persons are employed.

The provider should also:

  • Improve the uptake of cervical cancer screening to eligible patients.
  • Ensure Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (RESPECT) forms used for end of life patients are stored appropriately within the patient medical records in line with national guidance.

I am placing this service in special measures. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again in due course. If insufficient improvements have been made when we next inspect, such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures. This could lead to cancelling the provider’s registration or to varying the terms of their registration if they do not improve.

The service will be kept under review and if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted, and if there is not enough improvement, we could move to close the service by adopting our proposal to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration. Special measures will give people who use the service the reassurance that the care they get should improve.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

19/05/2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Drs Walters, Leung, Gregson & Mallick on 19 May 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • There was an open and 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.
  • 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 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 and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • The practice had recently conducted an audit into services for patients who have Asthma, Chronic Obstructive Airways Disease (COPD) or who remain breathless despite previous interventions was carried out. The practice had worked with other healthcare professionals involved in carrying out tests and investigations for patients in order to make a diagnosis to patients and quickly determine the best treatment for them. The practice put together a ‘carousel clinic’ which allowed patients to undergo all the tests they required in one day at one location and then the team held a multi disciplinary discussion to put together an individual treatment plan together for the patient to identify the most appropriate course of treatment for managing their condition. The results of the audit for 101 patients also showed that there was a reduction in the use of steroid/antibiotic treatment, a reduction in out of hours calls, A&E admissions and hospital admissions. It also demonstrated that there had been a reduction in unscheduled GP visits. Following the audit, the practice has taken steps to upskill nursing staff to be able to specialise more in these conditions. The practice has shared knowledge with other practices in the local area.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice