You are here

Dr Manmohan Singh Good Also known as George Eliot Medical Centre


Review carried out on 12 June 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr Manmohan Singh on 12 June 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.

Inspection carried out on 27/09/2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Manmohan Singh (also known as George Eliot Medical Centre) on 27 September 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • The practice had an appropriate system for reporting and recording significant events. We saw evidence that lessons were learned from incidents, and that learning was discussed to ensure improvements were implemented.
  • A number of risk assessments and processes ensured that patients were kept safe and safeguarded from abuse.
  • Data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) showed patient outcomes were lower than CCG and national averages in the uptake of cervical, breast and bowel cancer screening. Following the inspection the practice provided evidence of improvements in these areas.
  • The outcomes of patients’ care and treatment were not always monitored regularly.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment. Training was monitored and updated consistently.
  • The practices performance in patient satisfaction was mixed, with results slightly lower than average for GP consultations. The patients we interviewed and comment cards we reviewed told us they patients felt included in making decisions about their care and the treatment they received. They also said GPs were good at listening to them and gave them enough time and information to reach decisions.
  • The practice was responsive to the needs of the local population. GP and non-clinical staff at the practice spoke a number of different languages to accommodate the diverse patient population, including Gujurati, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu. External translation services were also available and patient literature was available in a variety of languages.
  • Patients were highly satisfied with how they could access appointments at the practice.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • The practice had modern 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 had a proactive approach to seeking feedback from staff and patients, and we saw evidence that feedback were acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Continue to encourage patients to engage with cervical, breast and bowel cancer screening programmes.
  • Improve the system for clinical audit to monitor outcomes and improvements made.
  • Create an action plan to improve GP Patient Survey data regarding consultations with GPs.
  • Keep the recently implemented systems for tracking of prescription stationery and monitoring uncollected prescriptions under review to ensure they are effective.
  • Maintain a record of verbal complaints received so they can be reviewed for themes, patterns or trends.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice