The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Jitendrakumar Trivedi Also known as Shreeji Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

22 Whitby Road, Slough, Berkshire, SL1 3DQ (01753) 424496

Provided and run by:
Dr Jitendrakumar Trivedi

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 Jitendrakumar Trivedi 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 Jitendrakumar Trivedi, you can give feedback on this service.

21 December 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr Jitendrakumar Trivedi on 21 December 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.

We have not revisited the practice as part of this review because the practice was able to demonstrate that they were meeting the regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 without the need for a visit.

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

At our previous comprehensive inspection at Dr Jitendrakumar Trivedi, more commonly known as Shreeji Medical Centre in Slough, Berkshire on 22 June 2016 we found a breach of regulations relating to the provision of safe services. The overall rating for the practice was good. Specifically, the practice was rated requires improvement for the provision of safe services, outstanding for the provision of effective services and good for the provision of caring, responsive and well-led services. The full comprehensive report on the June 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Jitendrakumar Trivedi on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was a desk-based review carried out on 5 April 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breach in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection in June 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

We found the practice had made improvements since our last inspection. Using information provided by the practice we found the practice was now meeting the regulations that had previously been breached. We have amended the rating for this practice to reflect these changes. The practice is now rated good for the provision of safe, caring, responsive and well led services. The practice remains rated as outstanding for the provision of effective services.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice had introduced a system for tracking and monitoring the use of blank prescription forms and pads. This system was now in line with national guidance. Completed actions included the installation of printer locks to prevent unauthorised access to blank prescription forms.
  • The practice had reviewed existing arrangements regarding the awareness of consent. We saw the consent policy had been shared and awareness training discussed in staff meetings which were attended by non-clinical and clinical staff including regular and locum staff. Furthermore, the practice had arranged full access to all the consent correspondence to be accessible to all staff including within the revised locum induction pack, which must be read prior to working at the practice.
  • The practice had established and was now operating safe systems to assess, manage and mitigate the risks identified relating to fire safety. This included documented fire evacuation drills and a review of evacuation procedures.
  • Further steps had been taken steps to increase the number of identified patients with caring responsibilities within the practice population. The practice had identified 27 patients, who were also a carer; this was an increase from 11 identified carers at the June 2016 inspection and amounted to approximately 0.5% of the practice list. We saw each month the practice was identifying more carers and advising them of the various avenues of support available from the practice. To further increase the identification of carers, the practice actively promoted carers awareness through practice videos (including videos in different languages spoken within the community) alongside posters and leaflets available in the waiting room. The practice had held further carers meetings where information was shared about resources for carers, including financial support and healthcare resources.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

22 June 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Jitendrakumar Trivedi on 22 July 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.
  • There was no system in place for tracking blank prescription forms and pads or monitoring their use, in line with national guidance.
  • 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.
  • The practice used innovative and proactive methods to improve patient outcomes, working with other local providers to share best practice for flu vaccines.
  • The practice implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the patient participation group. For example, following patient feedback the practice had reorganised patient information in the waiting area so that it was more clearly displayed, introduced in house diabetic eye screening and a phlebotomy service, employed more staff at busy periods, and changed the telephone system to make it easier and cheaper for patients to use.
  • The practice had developed a video for patients which described the services that were available at the practice. This was available in multiple languages to meet the needs of the practice population.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • The practice actively reviewed complaints and how they are managed and responded to, and made improvements as a result.
  • The practice had a clear vision which had quality and safety as a priority. The strategy to deliver this vision had been produced with stakeholders and was regularly reviewed and discussed with staff.
  • 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.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

The practice had audited avoidable accident and emergency admissions and unplanned admissions. They had then taken steps to reduce these where possible. Repeat audit data showed that rates for avoidable admissions and A and E attendances were the lowest in the locality. The practice had used this information to provide education and training on this topic to other local practices and to the public.

The practice had a proactive approach to flu immunisation. This resulted in a large percentage of patients receiving flu vaccines. The practice also provided information and education to other professionals about how to increase flu immunisation rates.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • Introduce a system for tracking and monitoring the use of blank prescription forms and pads, in line with national guidance.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Ensure that all permanent and locum staff are aware of guidance for seeking consent for children and adults.
  • Ensure that attendance at fire drills is logged and monitored to ensure that all staff remain aware of what to do in an emergency.
  • Implement further systems to identify and offer support to all carers.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

29 August 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

When we visited the practice on 5 December 2013, we found patient confidentiality and dignity was not always maintained. We found patients who used the service were not fully protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had not taken all reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. We received an action plan which set out what actions were to be taken, to achieve compliance.

During this inspection we found the practice had taken effective action and achieved compliance.

We found the practice now had robust systems in place to maintain patient confidentiality. Staff we spoke with knew about confidentiality and demonstrated that they understood patient privacy. This ensured the practice had put systems in place to ensure patients gave consent before interpreters were used.

Patients who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff members had access to up to date adult and children safeguarding policies and procedures. We found criminal record checks via the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) were in place for all appropriate staff. The practice had ensured the chaperone service was easily accessible and clearly advertised to patients.

5 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five patients who used the service. They told us they were treated with care and respect. We found staff spoke with people in a professional and friendly manner both on the telephone and in person at the practice. One patient told us 'The staff are very respectful and polite.' Another patient told us 'I find the staff very kind and caring.' A third patient told us 'I have no issues with the staff here; they try their best and are always very helpful.'

Patients told us they were satisfied with the care and treatment they received from the GP's and the nurses. One patient told us 'I have been with the surgery for a long time, the Doctors are generally good.' Another patient said 'Once I am seen then I have no issues'I have enough time to tell the Doctor why I am here and they then tell me the options available.' A third patient told us 'The staff are pleasant' generally I get a good service from the surgery.'

Patients told us they felt safe and confident with the care provided at the practice. One patient told us 'I have no concerns about safety here.' Another patient told us 'I feel safe.'

Patient's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. However, patient confidentiality and dignity was not always maintained.

We found patients who used the service were not fully protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had not taken all reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Patients were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. However, some staff had not received regular supervision and appraisal.

We found the provider had effective systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that patient's received.