We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr Mathibalasingham Chandrakumar 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 Mathibalasingham Chandrakumar, you can give feedback on this service.
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Mathibalasingham Chandrakumar on 18 March 2019 as part of our inspection programme.
At the last inspection in May 2018 we rated the practice as inadequate. The practice was placed in special measures because:
• The practice did not have clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen.
• The practice did not have an effective system to manage infection prevention and control.
• The practice did not have a systematic approach for health and safety audits.
• The practice did not have reliable systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines.
• Clinical audits did not include measurable outcomes, nor were they effectively used to drive quality improvement.
• Not all leaders were visible in the practice and there was a lack of oversight in areas such as clinical governance, risk assessments recruitment and future planning.
At this inspection, we found that the provider had satisfactorily addressed these areas.
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. We rated it as good for its treatment of all the population groups, with the exception of people with long term conditions for which it is rated as requires improvement.
We found that:
• The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
• Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
• Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
• The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
• The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:
• Improve the identification of carers to enable this group of patients to access the care and support they need.
As a result of the improvements made the practice has been re rated and removed from special measures.
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
This practice is rated as inadequate overall. (Previous inspection 17 April 2015 – Good)
The key questions are rated as:
Are services safe? – inadequate
Are services effective? – requires improvement
Are services caring? – good
Are services responsive? – requires improvement
Are services well-led? – inadequate
We carried out an announced comprehensive at Dr Mathibalasingham Chandrakumar on 30 May 2018.
At this inspection we found:
The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:
The areas where the provider should make improvements are:
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.
The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.
Special measures will give people who use the service the reassurance that the care they get should improve.
Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection for Dr Mathibalasingham Chandrakumar (also known as Sun Lane Surgery) on 07 April 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good. Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, well-led, effective, caring and responsive services. The practice was also good for providing services for older patients’, patients’ with long term conditions, families, children and young patients’, working age, those recently retired and students, patients’ who’s circumstances make them vulnerable and patients experiencing poor mental health.
Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:
Chief Inspector of General Practice
We carried out this follow up inspection to check that improvements had been made.
We found that since our last inspection in November 2013, there had been changes in staff and the provider had appointed a new practice manager in May 2014 and a new deputy practice manager in August 2014.
We found that the improvements required following our previous inspection had not been fully completed in that training records were still being developed. However, both the practice manager and deputy were working hard to complete the work by December 2014.
We found that staff were supported to deliver care to an appropriate standard through training, development and supervision and that effective systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of care.
Patients felt that their privacy and confidentiality were respected. They were pleased with the quality of care that they received. 'Ten out of ten' and 'very well looked after' were comments we received.
People were protected against the risks of infection. The premises were clean. One patient said the practice was, 'very fussy about hygiene'.
Staff were not supported to deliver care to an appropriate standard through training, development and supervision.
Effective systems were not in place to assess and monitor the quality of care.