The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Roman Sumira

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1 Studfall Court, Corby, Northamptonshire, NN17 1QP (01536) 401371

Provided and run by:
Dr Roman Sumira

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 Roman Sumira 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 Roman Sumira, you can give feedback on this service.

04 December 2020

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

The service is rated as Good overall. (Previously rated Inadequate in October 2019)

We previously carried out a focused inspection of Dr Roman Sumira on 10 of October 2019, following a comprehensive inspection on 2, 3 and 4 September 2019. Following these inspections, the overall rating for the practice was Inadequate. It was placed into special measures and a notice of decision was issued to stop regulated activities at the Weldon branch surgery. The full comprehensive report from the September 2019 and October 2019 inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Roman Sumira on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This was an announced comprehensive inspection undertaken following the period of special measures. We took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering how we carried out this inspection. We therefore undertook some of the inspection processes remotely and spent less time on site. We carried out searches on the clinical record system this was done in advance of the inspection and with the consent of the practice. We used these results to evidence the improvements made since the last inspection We conducted staff interviews on 2, 3 and 4 December 2020 and carried out a shortened site visit on 4 December 2020.

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.

Overall the practice is now rated as Good overall.

We found the practice had made improvements across all areas of non-compliance identified at our previous inspection and the majority had been completed during the COVID-19 global pandemic.

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm; and significant improvements had been made regarding the protection of vulnerable adults and children.
  • Patient safety alerts where now being effectively managed and monitored.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs and all monitoring reviews were up to date.
  • There was a programme of both clinical and non-clinical audits in place.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way even due to the current COVID-19 situation, appointments were offered via the telephone or face to face as required.
  • There were clear and effective processes for managing risks, issues and performance.
  • The governance of the practice had improved significantly since the last inspection; staff training had been completed and staff changes had enabled the delivery of high-quality person-centred care.
  • There were clear responsibilities, roles and improved systems of accountability to support good governance and management.
  • Considerable refurbishment had been undertaken and completed at the branch site which addressed the issues of non-compliance at the previous inspection.
  • Changes had been made to allow staff access to a Speak up Guardian.

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

  • Continue to increase the uptake for cervical screening.

As a result of this inspection, I am taking this service out of special measures. This recognises the significant improvements that have been made to the quality of care provided by this service.

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

10 October 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Dr Roman Sumira was inspected previously on 2nd, 3rd and 4th September 2019 under the comprehensive inspection programme

The practice was rated as inadequate overall. They were rated as Inadequate for providing a safe, effective and well-led service. Caring was rated as Good and Responsive was rated as Requires Improvement . The population groups were rated as Inadequate overall.

We took urgent enforcement action and served an Urgent Notice of decision imposing conditions on the service provider’s registration in respect of the regulated activities carried out at 1 Studfall Court, Corby, Northants. NN17 1QP and suspended any regulated activities being carried out from the branch surgery at Weldon, Nr Corby, Northants. NN17 3JJ

The urgent conditions for the branch surgery at Weldon took effect on 6 September 2019 to remain in force until removed by the Care Quality Commission (the CQC).

We carried out an announced focussed inspection at Dr Roman Sumira on 10 October 2019 to check whether the provider had made sufficient improvements and to decide whether the suspension period should be ended.

Following the inspection on 10th October and prior to the tribunal hearing listed for 23 October 2019 , a consent order was made. This agreed that the provider’s appeal was allowed, and that the scheduled hearing was to be vacated. The provider can now apply to the Care Quality Commission to have the conditions removed from their registration.

However, the CQC advised Dr Roman Sumira that further enforcement actions would be served as a breach of legal requirements was still found in relation to safeguarding service users from improper treatment and abuse and governance arrangements within the practice.

Two warning notices were issued which requires the practice to be compliant by 10 January 2020. The ratings have not changed as we will carry out a further comprehensive inspection in six months’ time.

Reports from our previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Roman Sumira on our website at

We found that:

  • At this inspection we still had concerns about the clinical oversight and governance arrangements in place.
  • The leadership, governance and culture of the practice did not always promote the delivery of high quality person-centred care.
  • Patients’ health was not always monitored in a timely manner to ensure medicines were being used safely and followed up on appropriately.
  • At this inspection we found that some improvements had been made, in particular, at the branch surgery at Weldon. These improvements included, monitoring of fire safety, infection control, management of control of substances hazardous to health. This meant that from 11 October 2019 Dr Sumira could recommence providing regulated activities from the branch surgery with immediate effect.
  • Dr Sumira has been asked to send the Care Quality Commission to provide a copy of the quote for refurbishment to the branch surgery at Weldon building and improvement of access to the front door with an agreed start date for these refurbishments to commence.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure patients are protected from abuse and improper treatment.
  • Ensure premises and equipment used by the service provider is fit for use.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

In addition, the provider should:

  • Review the process in place for the storage of medicines at the branch surgery to ensure they remain safe.
  • Ensure all staff have training relevant to their role.
  • Continue to review the staff training requirements for dispensers and source regular update training.

The practice was put in special measures in October 2019 and will remain in special measures. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any population group, key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve.

Special measures will give people who use the service the reassurance that the care they get should improve.

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

2bd, 3rd, 4th September 2019

During a routine inspection

Dr Roman Sumira had been inspected previously on the following dates: -

6 October 2015 under the comprehensive inspection programme. The practice was rated as Good overall

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 inspection focused on the following key questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Roman Sumira on 2nd, 3rd and 4th September 2019.

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 Inadequate overall.

  • The practice had no clear leadership structure, insufficient leadership capacity and limited formal governance arrangements.
  • Patients were at risk of harm because some systems and processes in place were not effective to keep them safe.
  • On the day of the inspection we could not establish if the practice had an effective system in place to safeguard service users from abuse and improper treatment.
  • Risks to patients were assessed but the systems and processes to address these risks were not implemented well enough to ensure patients were kept safe.
  • Feedback from people who use the service and stakeholders was positive. 78 patients expressed high levels of satisfaction about all aspects of the care and treatment they received. The feedback from comments cards we reviewed said patients felt they were treated with care, compassion, dignity and respect.

We rated the practice as Inadequate for providing a Safe service because we found:-

  • Patients were at risk of harm because some systems and processes in place were not effective to keep them safe. For example, patient safety alerts, safeguarding, medicine reviews, monitoring of patients on high risk medicines, monitoring of the cold chain.
  • The practice did not have an effective system in place to safeguard service users from abuse and improper treatment.
  • Risks to patients were assessed but the systems and processes to address these risks were not implemented well enough to ensure patients were kept safe. For example, fire and legionella
  • Patients’ health was not always monitored in a timely manner to ensure medicines were being used safely and followed up on appropriately.
  • The registered person had failed to ensure that the premises at Weldon used by the service were suitable and properly maintained for the purpose of which they were being used.

We rated the practice as Inadequate for providing Effective services because we found:-

  • Patients’ needs were not always assessed, and care and treatment was not always delivered in line with current legislation, standards and evidence-based guidance supported by clear pathways and tools.
  • There was no evidence to suggest that staff were aware of current evidence based guidance.
  • There was no evidence of clinical audits to demonstrate quality improvement.
  • The practice could not demonstrate role-specific training, for example, updates for dispensers once they had obtained their qualification.
  • The practice did not have an effective system in place to monitor training. Therefore, we could not be assured that staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Staff told us they had received an appraisal in the last 12 months.

We rated the practice as Requires Improvement for providing a responsive service because we found:-

  • The practice had not developed services in response to patient needs.
  • The premises at the branch surgery at Weldon were not fit for purpose.

We rated the practice as Inadequate for providing a well-led service because we found:-

  • We found a lack of leadership and governance relating to the overall management of the service. The practice was unable to demonstrate strong leadership in respect of safety.
  • There was a limited governance framework which supported the delivery of the strategy and good quality care. For example, patient safety alerts, safeguarding, medicine reviews, monitoring of patients on high risk medicines, monitoring of the cold chain, NICE guidance, staff training and meeting minutes.
  • The arrangements in place for managing risks were not effective.
  • The practice could not demonstrate that they proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on. The patient participation group was active.
  • The provider had some awareness of the requirements of the duty of candour but the systems and processes in place did not always support this.
  • The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity.
  • There was no evidence of innovation or service development. There was also no evidence of learning and reflective practice.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Ensure patients are protected from abuse and improper treatment.
  • Ensure all premises used by the service is fit for use.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

I am placing this service in special measures. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any population group, key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve.

Special measures will give people who use the service the reassurance that the care they get should improve

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

6 October 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Dr Sumira on 6 October 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. Incidents were investigated and where necessary changes made to prevent recurrences.
  • Practice staff were proactive in utilising methods to improve patient outcomes, working with other local providers to share best practice.
  • All patients spoken with said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Information was provided to help patients understand the care available to them.
  • Practice staff worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to ensure that they meet people’s needs.
  • The practice implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patient who were represented by the Patient Participation Group (PPG). PPG’s work with practice staff in an effective way that may lead to improved services.
  • The practice had a clear vision which concerned quality of patient care and safety as its priority. High standards were promoted by all practice staff with evidence of strong team working across all roles and good communications and relationships throughout.

We saw an area of outstanding practice:

  • In conjunction with the other practice who shared the building, regular patient education evenings were arranged by practice staff and the PPG for patients to attend. For example, a presentation had been given by health professionals about diabetes and another for asthma. These events were advertised by sending out flyers to all patients.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

22 January 2014

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection we spoke with five patients and with seven members of staff including GPs and the practice manager. All the patients were positive about their experiences with the service. One patient told us, 'My whole family are registered here even though they are grown-up and left home now. I like it because it's small and personal. I feel they know me and my family.'

We saw that care and treatment were planned and delivered in a way that met patient's needs. One patient told us, 'I am happy with the care. The doctor is very thorough and explains the options I have.'

We saw that care was delivered in a clean environment preventing the risk of infection to patients and staff. Patients confirmed they found the practice clean.

Staff received training in safeguarding (protecting vulnerable adults and children). They were aware of the appropriate agencies to refer any concerns to.

We saw evidence that staff were trained and supported to deliver care to an appropriate standard.

There were established quality monitoring systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service that patients received. There were methods to obtain patient feedback and an active Patient Participation Group.