The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr S Bhadra & Dr A Padiyar Partners Also known as Riverside Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Erith Health Centre, 50 Pier Road, Erith, Kent, DA8 1RQ (01322) 330283

Provided and run by:
Dr S Bhadra & Dr A Padiyar Partners

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 S Bhadra & Dr A Padiyar 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 S Bhadra & Dr A Padiyar Partners, you can give feedback on this service.

21 July 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced inspection at Dr S Bhadra & Dr A Padiyar Partners (also known as Riverside Surgery) between 18 and 21 July 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe - Good

Effective -Good

Caring - Good

Responsive - Good

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 18 November 2020, the practice was rated Requires Improvement overall and Good for effective, caring, responsive and requires improvement for providing safe and well-led services.

At this inspection we looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led and we carried through the ratings for Caring and Responsive from the last inspection.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr S Bhadra & Dr A Padiyar Partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a focused inspection undertaking a site visit to follow up on breaches identified at their last inspection:

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider.
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A short site visit.

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 have rated this practice as Good overall

We found that:

  • The practice had developed and improved the arrangements in relation to medicines management, which were concerns at the last inspection.
  • The service had a range of policies and procedures to govern activity.
  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Continue to take action to improve the uptake of childhood immunisation and cervical screening.
  • Continue to work on digitalising all staff documents so they are centralised.
  • Ensure dates are recorded on all prescription logs.
  • Work with the Patient Participation Group to improve engagement.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

18 November 2020

During a routine inspection

Dr S Bhadra and Dr A Padiyar Partners (also known as Riverside Surgery) is a GP practice location in the London Borough of Bexley.

We carried out an inspection of this service as a follow up inspection as there were regulatory breaches identified at their last inspection, which was on 16 October 2019.

This was a comprehensive announced inspection carried out mainly remotely, with a short on-site visit conducted on 18 November 2020. We rated the location as requires improvement overall.

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 have rated this practice as requires improvement overall and for the population group of people with long term conditions.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing safe services because:

  • There were appropriate risk management systems in relation to the practice premises.
  • The practice had practices and processes to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse.
  • The practice followed published requirements to protect staff and patients through appropriate staff vaccination.
  • Appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene were met, including newly introduced arrangements in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • However, the practice had not maintained all necessary arrangements in relation to medicines management.

We rated the practice as good for providing effective services because:

  • There was evidence of quality improvement activity.
  • Staff were receiving regular appraisals.
  • Effective joint working was in place. The practice held monthly multidisciplinary meetings and detailed records of discussions and action points were retained.
  • Staff worked together and with other organisations to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • The practice was able to demonstrate that staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.
  • However we found the provider needed to make improvement in the care of the population groups of People with long-term conditions, as , we found that some patients prescribed medicines that required additional monitoring were not reviewed and / or monitored in line with published guidance.

We rated the practice as good for providing caring services because:

  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Patient feedback from GP patient survey results were in line with local and national averages.

We rated the practice as good for responsive services because:

  • Complaints were managed in a timely fashion and detailed responses were provided.
  • Feedback from the patient survey indicated that respondents’ ease of access care and treatment was in line with local area and national averages.
  • The practice was continually reviewing and adjusting the appointment system to cater to the needs of patients and had introduced online consultations to improve access.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing well-led services because:

  • The provider had a patient participation group although it had suspended its activities during the pandemic. The practice did not act on other sources of patient views to improve services and culture.
  • The practice did not have proper effective arrangements for identifying, managing and mitigating risks, as appropriate and accurate information was not consistently maintained within clinical records.
  • Risks to the health, safety and welfare of patients were not properly assessed, monitored and mitigated against, as appropriate and accurate information was not consistently maintained within clinical records.
  • The practice did not maintain securely an accurate, complete and contemporaneous record in respect of each service user, including a record of the care and treatment provided to the service user and of decisions taken in relation to the care and treatment provided.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to review their arrangements for identifying people with caring responsibilities.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

16 October 2019

During a routine inspection

Dr S Bhadra and Dr A Padiyar Partners (also known as Riverside Surgery) is a GP practice location in the London Borough of Bexley.

We carried out an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us including information provided by the practice. Our review indicated that there may have been a significant change to the quality of care provided since the last inspection.

This was a comprehensive announced inspection carried out on 16 October 2019. We rated the location as requires improvement overall.

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 have rated this practice as requires improvement overall and for the population groups of People with long-term conditions, Families, children and young people and Working age people (including those recently retired and students).

We rated the practice as inadequate for providing safe services because:

  • The practice did not have safe arrangements for the management of patients prescribed high risk medicines.
  • There was a lack of appropriate risk management systems in relation to the practice premises at their main site.
  • The practice had practices and processes to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse. However, some arrangements to support safeguarding processes were not clear.
  • The practice did not fully follow published requirements to protect staff and patients through appropriate staff vaccination.
  • Appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene were not met.
  • There were some gaps in arrangements to deal with medical emergencies.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing effective services because:

  • There was evidence of quality improvement activity.
  • Staff were receiving regular appraisals.
  • Effective joint working was in place. The practice held monthly multidisciplinary meetings and detailed records of discussions and action points were retained.
  • Staff worked together and with other organisations to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • The practice was able to demonstrate that staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles. However, there was lack of supervision of staff in advanced roles.
  • We found the provider needed to make improvement in the care of the population groups of People with long-term conditions, Families, children and young people and Working age people (including those recently retired and students).

We rated the practice as good for providing caring services because:

  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Patient feedback from GP patient survey results were in line with local and national averages.

We rated the practice as good for responsive services because:

  • Complaints were managed in a timely fashion and detailed responses were provided.
  • Feedback from the patient survey indicated that respondents’ ease of access care and treatment was in line with local area and national averages.
  • The practice was continually reviewing and adjusting the appointment system to cater to the needs of patients and had introduced online consultations to improve access.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing well-led services because:

  • There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management. However, some governance arrangements were ineffective.
  • There were clear and effective processes for managing issues and performance. However, the practice did not have proper effective arrangements for identifying, managing and mitigating risks.
  • The provider had an active patient participation group and there were structured feedback and engagement mechanisms for patients.
  • There was evidence of continuous improvement or innovation.
  • Staff provided positive feedback about working at the service which indicated a good working culture.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review their arrangements for identifying people with caring responsibilities.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

15 July 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Good Health PMS on 15 July 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Please note that when referring to information throughout this report, for example any reference to the Quality and Outcomes Framework data, this relates to the most recent information available to the CQC at that time.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • 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.
  • Patients said they found it difficult to make an appointment as it was particularly difficult to get through on the phone. Patients told us the easiest way to make an appointment was to attend the practice in person.
  • 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.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • The practice was seeking ways to reach out to hard to reach, seldom served patients, particularly their house bound patients. They had started a pilot of ‘prophylactic’ visits to some of their housebound patients who rarely accessed the service. They hoped to formalise and provide the service to all housebound patients in the future.

However there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

The provider should

  • Ensure out of range fridge temperatures are properly explained and actions taken recorded in response to these events
  • Ensure there is a system for the management of prescription pads so they are properly accounted for
  • Ensure suitable arrangements are in place for seeking consent prior to birth control implant procedures
  • Actively seek to involve patients in developing and improving the service through the development of a patient participation group
  • Ensure improvements are made to the telephone system to allow patients to make contact with the practice as required

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

14 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We visited both the main practice surgery at Erith Health Centre and the Barnehurst surgery as part of this inspection. We spoke to people and staff at both locations. Most people we spoke with told us they were very happy with the treatment they received when visiting the practice. One person told us "the GP I usually see is really good". They told us that when they'd had concerns the GP had arranged a referral to a specialist for them "just to be safe" which they found very reassuring. Another person told us "everyone here is always friendly and the surgery is always clean."

We found that people were treated with dignity and respect when visiting the practice and that they were involved in making decisions about their treatment. People's treatment was planned and delivered in such a way as to ensure their safety and welfare. The provider had taken appropriate steps to protect people from the risk of abuse. Suitable employment checks had mostly been made on staff prior to their starting working. We also found that the provider acted upon feedback from people using the service and that appropriate changes were implemented as a result of learning from any incidents. However, we also found that the provider did not always have suitable systems in place to ensure that risks to people's safety and welfare were monitored.