The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Sai Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

105 Calcutta Road, Tilbury, Essex, RM18 7QA (01375) 855643

Provided and run by:
Sai Medical Centre

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sai Medical Centre 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 Sai Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

24 November 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out a targeted assessment of Sai Medical Centre on 24 November 2023 without a site visit. Overall, the practice is rated as good. We rated the key question of responsive as good.

Safe -good

Effective – good

Caring - good

Responsive – good

Well led – good

Following our previous inspection in June 2022, the practice was rated good overall and for all key questions. At this inspection, we rated the practice good for providing responsive services.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Sai Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out this inspection as part of our GP responsive assessment

  • Responsive question inspected

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.

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 found that:

  • The practice had positive, or no change reported within the GP national patient survey data since last year’s survey results.
  • Same-day child access was tailored where possible to avoid missing time out of school.
  • Patients were given options to self-book appointments to make access to the practice more streamlined.
  • The provider would mark patient notes with preferred modes of access to support appointments.
  • Longer appointment times were made available for more complex patients to avoid multiple appointments.
  • The provider would involve all staff with complaints to gain feedback and opportunities to learn, including self-reflection.

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

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

27 June 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection at Sai Medical Centre on 27 June 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive - Good

Well-led - Good

This location was previously registered under a different provider. We inspected the practice under the previous provider registration on 11 October 2016:

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Sai Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a comprehensive to:

  • Inspect and rate all key questions

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
  • Requesting staff complete questionnaires
  • Requesting the practice signpost patient to our website to complete ‘Give Feedback on Care’ forms for this service.

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 provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm. However, not all key staff were aware of how to access the safeguarding register.
  • There was a system for recording staff immunisation status, however this was incomplete for some staff.
  • Patient records did not always demonstrate that appropriate monitoring tests had been completed and reviewed prior to medicine being prescribed.
  • There was a system in place for safety alerts, however tasks were not delegated when the lead for this area was busy with other work.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • The practice had met the minimum targets for all childhood immunisations, aside from the combined measles, mumps and rubella immunisation aged five. The uptake for cervical screening was also below the required target.
  • Feedback from patients was positive about how staff treated them and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • 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 practice used patient feedback to monitor this.
  • There were systems for risk identification, investigating significant events and complaints. In some instances, opportunities to review and strengthen governance systems related to these were missed.
  • 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:

  • Improve safeguarding processes so that all relevant members of staff are aware of how to access the safeguarding register.
  • Improve processes relating recording of staff immunisation status.
  • Strengthen the processes for recording results taken from the hospital pathology system.
  • Continue to develop processes relating to significant events, specifically relating to monitoring progress on any outcomes or actions and making sure all significant events raised are logged.
  • Improve the protocol for dealing with safety alerts so that actions are dealt with in a timely manner.
  • Continue to improve awareness and uptake of the combined measles, mumps and rubella immunisation aged five and cervical screening uptake.

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