Archived: Dr Pradeep Sahadevan Also known as Sahadevan

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

Previously we carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Pradeep Sahadevan (Park View Practice) on 6 July 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good but required improvements in the safe domain. The full comprehensive report on the July 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Pradeep Sahadevan ( Park View Surgery) on our website at www.cqc.org.uk .

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 2 February 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 6 July 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

At our previous inspection on 6 July 2016, we rated the practice as good overall but required improvement for providing safe services as the arrangements in respect of ensuring appropriate, safe processes were not fully in place. For example;

• Emergency medicines were not fully in place;

• Risk assessments had not been completed for fire, Legionella or emergency equipment;

• Other areas such as audits, patient dignity and chaperoning, identifying carers, sourcing training and updating the business continuity plan also required improving.

These arrangements had improved when we undertook a follow up inspection on 2 February 2017. The practice is now rated as good for providing safe services.

Our key findings were as follows:

The arrangements in respect of ensuring appropriate, safe processes had improved. The practice had systems in place for the management and dispensing of medicines, which kept patients safe. The practice had a small kit of medicines for use in acute allergic reactions in addition to emergency medicines which could be used at the practice or used when visiting patients at home.

Risks to patients, staff and visitors to the practice were assessed and plans were in place. The practice had conducted a fire risk assessment, a legionella risk assessment, and there was a risk assessment in place to qualify why there was no defibrillator for the use in the event of an emergency.

Regular medicines audits, to ensure prescribing was in accordance with best practice guidelines for safe prescribing had been carried out.

We saw privacy curtains were in place around the couch in the GP consulting room to maintain patients’ privacy and dignity during examinations, investigations and treatments.

We saw information on chaperoning was displayed for patients in the reception area and in the GPs room.

The practice manager informed us that she was still in the process of sourcing mental capacity act training but was hopeful this would be in the very near future. We saw posters displayed in clinical rooms providing information for staff of the five principles of the act and what action to take.

The practice had identified those patients that were carers and were making sure this information was able to be seen clearly on the clinical system. The practice was very small with only approximately 800 patients and only eight of those being active carers.

The practice manager had updated the business contingency plan to include what action was to be taken when covering staff absences.

However, there were areas of practice where the provider should continue to make improvements.

Importantly, the provider should:

• Continue to review the types of audits carried out;

• Continue to review training for staff;

• Continue to review the business continuity plan.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice