The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Dr Manohar Sohanpal Also known as Garlinge Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

150 Canterbury Road, Westbrook, Margate, Kent, CT9 5DB (01843) 255693

Provided and run by:
Dr Manohar Sohanpal

All Inspections

05/03/2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Manohar Sohanpal on 5 March 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing effective, caring, responsive and well-led services. The practice was also rated good for providing services to older people, people with long-term conditions, families, children and young people, as well as working age people (including those recently retired and students), people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). The practice required improvement for providing safe services and the concerns which led to this rating applied to all population groups.

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. 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, with the exception of some areas of training that had not been updated or undertaken, although further training needs had been identified and training 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.
  • The practice was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • The practice was clean and there were systems to help ensure standards of hygiene were maintained.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and the practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

We saw an area of outstanding practice:

  • The practice had worked with two other local practices to employ and provide a team of three specialist nurses and one health care assistant dedicated to supporting and responding to the needs of older patients over the age of 75. The team offered rapid response to meet urgent needs, as well as routine care and support. For example, they were notified and attended when patients were discharged from hospital, to assess and follow-up any additional needs. They had access to the patient records system and were therefore able to keep information accurate and up-to-date, including care plans that were used for these patients. Data we reviewed indicated that unplanned emergency attendance and admissions into hospital had reduced for this age group.

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

The provider SHOULD:

  • Review the training requirements for administration staff in relation to safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.
  • Review the training requirements in relation to infection prevention and control for the lead nurse.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

29 May 2013

During a routine inspection

This inspection visit was undertaken by two compliance inspectors and a specialist advisor.

We spoke with five patients who used the service. These patients were randomly selected and had attended an appointment with one of the GPs, or the nurse.

We spoke with staff that included; the business manager, practice nurse, support manager, two receptionists and the principal GP, Dr Manohar Sohanpal

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of patients who used the service. We spent time talking to people observing interaction between staff and patients. We reviewed records and systems and looked at the environment and how this impacted on the service delivery.

When registered the provider declared no- compliance with some aspects relating to infection control and the facilities provided. We reviewed the facilities and practice in the practice and found systems in place that protected people against the risk of cross infection.

We looked at the processes that the practice had in place to ensure the people who used the service were protected from abuse. These processes ensured staff had an understanding of abuse and what to do if it was suspected.

We looked at the systems and processes the practice had in place to respond to complaints and review the quality of the service provided. These processes ensured information provided was used to improve the service provided.