Dr K S Morjaria

Updated 30 June 2016

Dr K S Morjaria is a GP practice, which provides primary medical services to approximately 3,790 patients living in and around the Belgrave area of Leicester. It is located in a converted mid-terraced house on Broadhurst Street. All patient facilities are accessible. Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group (LCCCG) commission the practice’s services.

The practice has two GP partners (one male and one female). They are supported by a Practice Manager and a team of reception staff. The reception staff are also trained to provide some healthcare assistant responsibilities.

Dr K S Morjaria is open between 8am and 7pm on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday and between 8am and 1pm on a Thursday. Appointments are from 8am to 12noon every morning and 1.30pm and 6.30pm daily. Extended hours appointments are offered between 6.30pm and 7 pm on each weekday, with the exception of Thursdays. Telephone advice is also available between 12noon and 1pm daily, with the exception of Thursdays.

Patients can access out of hours support from the national advice service NHS 111. The practice also provides details for the nearest urgent care centres, as well as accident and emergency departments.

Updated 30 June 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr K S Morjaria on 14 April 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 incidents.

• The practice maintained appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene and was visibly clean and tidy.

• Patient needs were assessed and care was delivered in line with current evidence based guidance. The social needs of the patient were also considered to provide a holistic approach to their care and treatment.

• Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment. However, the range of mandatory training offered should be reviewed.

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

• Practice staff reviewed the needs of its local population, reviewed performance data and engaged with the NHS England Area Team and Clinical Commissioning Group to secure improvements to services where these were identified.

• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.

• Information about how to complain or raise a concern was available and easy to understand.

• The practice had a clear vision and developed annual plans to deliver quality care and promote good outcomes for patients. Staff were involved in the development of the annual plans and were clear about the vision and their responsibilities in relation to it.

• There was an overarching governance framework which supported the delivery of the strategy and quality care. This included arrangements to monitor and improve quality and identify risk. However, the practice did not always follow their own policies and procedures to ensure risk was identified and action taken as necessary.

• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

• The patient participation group was active and felt involved in the development of the practice.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

• Formal risk assessments to be completed to monitor and manage risks in relation to patient and staff safety

• To consider the range of training completed, including Mental Capacity Act and information governance.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 30 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions.

• GPs led on chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.

• Performance for diabetes related indicators was better compared to the national average. For example, 84% of those diagnosed with diabetes had their blood sugar levels monitored in the previous 12 months compared to 78% and 91% had their cholesterol measured and was within a specified range compared to 81% nationally.

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

• All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met. For those patients with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Updated 30 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people.

• There were systems in place to identify and follow up children living in disadvantaged circumstances and who were at risk, for example, children and young people who had a high number of A&E attendances.

• The practice hosted the childhood immunisation service, which was provided to the practice patients by the health visiting team. Immunisation rates for 2014/15 were lower compared to the clinical commissioning group, however the practice had identified this and we saw attendance rates had increased for 2015/16.

• The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 76%, which was better than the CCG average of 69% and comparable to the national average of 74%.

• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

• We saw positive examples of joint working with midwives and health visitors.

Updated 30 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people.

• The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population and implemented care plans as necessary.

• The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

• Longer appointments were available when needed for patients with a care plan in place.

• We saw positive examples of joint working with local care homes where residents were registered as a patient at the practice.

Updated 30 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students).

• The needs of the working age population, those recently retired and students had been identified and the practice had adjusted the services it offered to ensure these were accessible, flexible and offered continuity of care.

• The practice was proactive in offering online services, including requests for repeat prescriptions and the ability to book appointments.

• A full range of health promotion and screening was offered that reflected the needs for this age group.

• Appointments were available outside of normal working hours.

Updated 30 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

• 100% of patients diagnosed with dementia had their care reviewed in a face to face meeting in the last 12 months, which is better than the national average (84%).

• 96% of those with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder or other had a comprehensive and agreed care plan in place, compared to the national average of 88%.

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.

• The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations. The practice was also able to refer to a mental health counsellor, as needed.

• The practice had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency where they may have been experiencing poor mental health.

• Staff had a good understanding of how to support patients with mental health needs and dementia. However, staff members had not received training in relation to the Mental Capacity Act.

Updated 30 June 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.

• The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including those with a learning disability.

• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.

• The practice regularly worked with other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients.

• The practice informed vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

• Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in vulnerable adults and children. Staff were aware of their responsibilities regarding information sharing, documentation of safeguarding concerns and how to contact relevant agencies in normal working hours and out of hours.