The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr VSR Chadalavada & Partners

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

77 Woodhead Road, Stoke On Trent, Staffordshire, ST2 8DH (01782) 542671

Provided and run by:
Prima Care Surgeries

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 VSR Chadalavada & Partners 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 VSR Chadalavada & Partners, you can give feedback on this service.

31 October 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr VSR Chadalavada & Partners on 31 October 2019. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

17 January 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Chadalavada and Partners on 17 January 2017. 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.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are as follows :

  • Consider introducing standard agendas for meetings to record and evidence that consistent discussions are taking place over time.
  • Consider introducing a pro-active checking system to ensure that medical indemnity, locum checks, staff training and nurse registrations are up to date.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

At the previous inspection on 8 October 2013 we found that the provider did not have systems in place to ensure staff were suitable to care for patients. We saw no evidence that checks were made to ensure staff were registered with their appropriate professional bodies. We found that an effective complaints system was not in place. Complaints made by patients were not always responded to appropriately.

We asked the provider to send information to show that the required improvements had been made. We checked this evidence and found that some improvements had been completed and others were on-going for example the management of complaints.

8 October 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection we spoke with seven patients and six members of staff. Prior to the inspection we spoke with a spokesperson from the patient participation group (PPG) who was also a patient. PPGs are an effective way for patients and GP practices to work together to improve the service and to promote and improve the quality of the care. One patient told us, 'The practice is great. It's local and the staff are friendly'. Another patient told us, 'The girls on reception are excellent. They are always very polite and friendly. The GP is excellent'.

We saw that patient's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and that patients were treated with dignity and respect. We saw that patients experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs.

We saw that patients were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

The provider did not have systems in place to ensure patients were cared for by suitably qualified professional staff. We saw no evidence in staff files that checks to ensure staff were registered with their appropriate professional bodies had been carried out and were in date.

An effective complaints system was not in place. Complaints patients made were not always responded to appropriately.