The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr M Aslam's Practice Also known as The Murree Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

201 Rectory Road, Pitsea, Basildon, Essex, SS13 1AJ (01268) 727736

Provided and run by:
Dr Mohammad Aslam

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 M Aslam's Practice 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 M Aslam's Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

29 June 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Dr M Aslam’s Practice on 29 June 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive - Good

Well-led - Good

During this inspection, we did not inspect the key questions Caring and Responsive therefore these ratings were carried over from our inspection in 2015.

Following our previous inspection on 24 June 2021, the practice was rated Good overall and for the key questions Effective and Well-Led. The practice was rated Requires Improvement for providing safe services and Requires Improvement for the working age population group. We issued a requirement notice at this inspection for Regulation 17, Good Governance.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr M Aslam’s Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This was a focused inspection to follow-up on the breaches of the regulations identified at the last inspection and the other areas where we told them they should improve.

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

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.

At this inspection we rated the provider as Good for providing safe care and treatment.

We found that:

  • The breaches in the previous inspection had been complied with and actioned.
  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • There was an effective system to review the professional registration status of clinical staff.
  • A record was kept of staff immunisation and there was an effective system to regularly review this in line with current guidance.
  • Patients on high risk medicines were appropriately reviewed prior to prescribing repeat prescriptions.
  • Patients on high risk medicines had received the required monitoring.
  • Emergency medicines held on site were risk assessed.

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

  • Continue to improve the uptake of cervical screening and childhood immunisations.
  • Continue to improve the system of acting on safety alerts.
  • Continue to specify the day of the week Methotrexate is taken on the patients records in accordance with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance.
  • Continue to regularly record the training of locum staff at the practice.

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

24 June 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Dr M Aslam’s Practice on 24 June 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe - Requires improvement

Effective – Good

Caring - Good

Responsive - Good

Well-led – Good

We did not inspect the key questions Caring and Responsive therefore these ratings were carried over from our inspection in 2015.

Following our previous inspection on 12 November 2019, the practice was rated Requires Improvement overall and for the key questions Effective and Well led. The practice carried over the Good ratings for Safe, Caring and Responsive from our 2015 inspection.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr M Aslam’s Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a focused follow-up inspection to follow up on:

  • The breaches of the regulations from the last inspection.

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 where possible and through questionnaires sent to staff.
  • 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 pre and post inspection
  • A site visit.
  • Reviewing information we already held about 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 have rated this practice as Good overall. Specifically, Requires Improvement for Safe and Good for Effective and Well-led. We rated all the population groups as Good, except for working age people due to lower cancer screening data.

We found that:

  • Some processes in place for keeping patients safe and protect from avoidable harm, required further strengthening.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs. Performance for patients with a long-term condition and those experiencing poor mental health had improved since our previous inspection.
  • There was a structure in place that supported the use of data, feedback and other information, to review performance and promote quality improvement.
  • There was an effective complaints system in place which followed NHS guidance.
  • There was now effective oversight of areas where responsibilities had been delegated.
  • There were systems in place for learning and dissemination of learning through incidents, complaints and other feedback.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

We found one breach of regulation. The provider must:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care

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

  • Improve the new system for policies and procedures once established, to check its effectiveness, also review policies and procedures generally to check that they account for staff absence and cover arrangements.
  • Improve the recruitment procedure regarding the checks on immunisation of staff and implement a system for recording clinical status checks for staff.
  • Continue to promote prevention activities such as cervical screening and childhood immunisations.
  • Improve the timely management of pathology results

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

12 November 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Dr M Aslam’s Practice on 12 November 2019. We decided to undertake an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us, due to the length of time since our last inspection. This inspection looked at the following key questions:

  • Effective
  • Well led

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 requires improvement overall.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing effective services because:

  • Some performance data relating to patients with diabetes was lower than local and national averages. Performance for these indicators has been lower than average for several years.
  • Performance data relating to people experiencing poor mental health was lower than the local and national averages. Performance for these indicators had reduced from previous years.
  • There was some quality improvement activity in place, however, there was limited evidence of whether this was used to improve patient care and treatment.
  • The practice did not have records of any recruitment checks or training records for a staff member outsourced from another provider.

Some of these areas affected all population groups so we rated all population groups as requires improvement.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing well-led services because:

  • We did not have assurance that some systems relating to clinical and overall governance were effective. This included the recruitment of staff, identifying risk and managing performance.
  • The system for managing complaints was not effective.
  • There was a lack of quality improvement activity, including clinical audit.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Promote uptake of cancer screening.

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

09 January 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We conducted a comprehensive announced inspection on 09 January 2015.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led services. It was also good for providing services for the older people, people with long-term conditions, families, children and young people, working age people (including those recently retired and students), people living in vulnerable circumstances, and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed, addressed and shared with staff during meetings.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and managed.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned for.
  • 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 readily available and easy to understand.
  • The practice had good 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 proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

However, there was an area of practice where the provider needed to make improvements.

The provider should

  • Ensure that staff who undertake chaperone duties undertake appropriate training.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice