• Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Dr Prasanta Mukhopadhyay

Doctors Surgery, 57 Calcutta Road, Tilbury, Essex, RM18 7QZ (01375) 859535

Provided and run by:
Dr Prasanta Mukhopadhyay

All Inspections

21 October 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out a focused inspection on 21 October 2014 to follow up on concerns we found when we last inspected the practice in May 2014.

We found that improvements had been made to the arrangements for protecting patients and staff against the risk of infections. The practice looked visibly clean and the flooring in the doctor’s consultation rooms and the nurse’s treatment room had been replaced. All staff had undertaken infection control training. The practice had an infection control policy and procedure in place and infection control checklist had been completed. However the policy and procedure was incomplete and did not identify the clinical and non-clinical staff responsible for cleaning or overseeing and monitoring the infection control practices. The policy did not include any information or guidance around dealing with bodily fluids such as blood and urine samples, managing and disposal of sharps or contaminated materials, dealing with needle-stick injuries. The audit checklist was incomplete. Questions within the checklist around waste handling, body fluid spillage and decontamination of equipment were not completed. We saw that where the checklist identified areas for action and improvements that there was no plan for addressing these

We found that improvements had been made to protect patients and staff against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. The practice had arrangements in place for dealing with an outbreak of fire. A fire risk assessment checklist was carried out in July 2014. The assessment identified people who may be at particular risk in the event of a fire such as lone working staff, disabled, elderly or very young patients. All staff had undertaken fire safety training and were aware of the fires safety and evacuation procedures. Fire detection and safety equipment including fire alarms, emergency lighting and fire extinguishers were tested regularly to ensure that they were safe and in good working order.

We found that improvements had been made in supporting staff to deliver safe and effective patient care and treatment. All staff had undertaken an appraisal of their roles and performance. Staff working at the practice had undertaken training in emergency life support, fire safety and infection control. Where the appraisal system had identified areas for staff development and training there were no plans in place to show how staff were to be supported in achieving this training.

The practice did not have arrangements in place for monitoring and improving the quality and safety of the services provided. Checklists for identifying risks within the practice were incomplete and where areas for improvements were identified there were no plans in place for addressing these issues. Checks in respect of fridge temperatures used for the storage of medicines such as vaccines and checking the expiry date of medicines were not consistently carried out or monitored.

16 May 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During our inspection we looked at the six areas we had previously found to be non-compliant in January 2014. The provider did not submit an action plan stating when they would achieve compliance. In May 2014 the provider contacted us and requested we visited to check compliance.

We found that patients with musculoskeletal complaints were referred to an appropriate specialism for assessment and treatment. We found out of date emergency medical equipment had been removed and the defibrillator equipment was appropriately stored.

We found the premises were cleaner than at the time of our January 2014 inspection. The floor in the clinical rooms and hallway had been replaced and surfaces were clear. However people may not be fully protected from the risk of infection because appropriate national guidance had not been followed.

We found the provider had conducted a basic fire risk assessment and replaced the out of date water and carbon dioxide fire extinguishers in May 2014. However, an inspection from Essex Fire and Rescue Service on 13 February 2014 identified a number of areas requiring action by the provider.

We found the provider had not conducted any staff appraisals since our last inspection in January 2014. We found the provider did not have an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.

11 March 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

On this occasion we did not speak with anyone who used the service about this outcome.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

2 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We found that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Most people's care was planned and delivered to meet their needs. However, some people with potential musculoskeletal complaints had not been referred to an appropriate specialism for assessment and treatment. We also found medical equipment had not been properly maintained and there were insufficient medical supplies available in sufficient quantities to meet peoples assessed needs.

We found some areas of the surgery were not clean and there were not effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. The heating was not working at the time of our inspection and the building was cold. There were insufficient electrical sockets to power equipment and the fire equipment was last tested in April 1991. This meant there was insufficient arrangements in place to protect people against the risks of an unsafe and unsuitable premises.

Staff had not been appraised within the last twelve months and there were no peer support or clinical supervision arrangements in place. There were no systems, policy or procedure for assessing quality assurance and no records of risk assessments undertaken at the time of our inspection.