• Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Ghanshyam Patel Also known as Veritas Health Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

243-245 Chesterfield Road, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S8 0RT (0114) 258 3997

Provided and run by:
Dr Ghanshyam Patel

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 Ghanshyam Patel 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 Ghanshyam Patel, you can give feedback on this service.

31 January 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr Ghanshyam Patel on 31 January 2020. 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.

8 August 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Ghanshyam Patel Practice on the 13 December 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good, with requires improvement for providing safe services. The full comprehensive report on the 13 December 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Ghanshyam Patel on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 8 August 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 16 December 2016 and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is now rated as Good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The provider had reviewed systems processes and practices to minimise risks to patient safety. For example a legionella risk assessment had been completed and fire drills and fire alarm checks were being performed. Staff had correctly labelled the sharps bins and weekly health and safety checks.

  • Following this visit the provider submitted an environmental risk assessment completed on 10 August 2017 to the Commission.

  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance and records of actions taken in response to safety alerts kept.

  • The process for recruitment checks had been updated and necessary pre-employment checks now undertaken.

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

  • The environmental risk assessment did not identify all the possible risks in the premises. The provider should  continue to ensure all premises and equipment used by the service provider is fit for use.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

13 December 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Ghanshyam Patel on 13 December 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were not always adequately assessed and well managed particularly in relation to environmental health and safety matters and recruitment.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • 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 available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • 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 sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • Implement the practice recruitment policy and procedure consistently in respect of obtaining references and confirming the identity of staff.
  • Improve the management of health and safety. Complete an environmental risk assessment and implement actions to mitigate any risks identified. Update the legionella risk assessment. Carry out regular fire drills.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Maintain records of the action taken in response to medical safety alerts.
  • Date and sign sharps boxes when put into use.
  • Maintain records of induction.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

17 June 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We found that the practice had operated effective recruitment procedures to ensure that the applicant was of good character and had the qualifications, skills and experience which were necessary for the work to be performed.

The practice had protected people against the risk of unsafe care by ensuring that an effective system was in place to monitor the expiration of drugs.

20 November 2013

During a routine inspection

All the patients told us that their privacy and dignity was always respected when attending the practice. Patients spoken with were very satisfied with the care, support and advice they had received. Patient's comments included: 'they (the staff) are very friendly and polite', 'I am treated as I would treat people', 'Dr Patel is very thorough and always makes sure everything is done properly', 'staff are brilliant, they really do look after you' and 'you feel like you're a person'.

We found patients were fully informed and involved in decisions relating to their treatment and care. Patients told us that the doctors and the nurse always explained things to them and that they were given the opportunity to discuss their treatment. One patient commented: 'the doctor takes a lot of care explaining everything'.

All the staff spoken with were clear about what their role and responsibilities were and what action they would take if they saw or suspected any abuse.

We found that the practice did not have an appropriate standard of cleanliness and hygiene.

We found that the practice had not operated effective recruitment procedures to ensure that the applicant was of good character and had the qualifications, skills and experience which were necessary for the work to be performed.

The practice had not protected people against the risk of unsafe care by ensuring that an effective system was in place to monitor the expiration of drugs.