The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Dr Shoeb Suryani Also known as Hill Street Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The Surgery, Hill Street, Bradley, Bilston, West Midlands, WV14 8SB (01902) 491659

Provided and run by:
Dr Shoeb Suryani

All Inspections

28 March 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr Shoeb Suryani on 28 March 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.

22 June 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Shoeb Suryani on 27 June 2016. After the comprehensive inspection, the practice was rated as requires improvement for providing safe services.

We issued requirement notices in relation to:

  • Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014 Fit and proper persons involved.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Dr Shoeb Suryani on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 22 June 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations we identified at our previous inspection on 27 June 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice had reviewed its recruitment procedures to ensure that all necessary employment checks were completed for all staff employed and the required information maintained safely.
  • The recording of significant events had been reviewed and they were sufficiently detailed to show that concerns identified were appropriately followed up to prevent further occurrences and ensure improvements made were appropriate.
  • Arrangements were in place for sharing alerts, best practice guidance and the learning outcomes from significant events, incidents and near misses with staff.
  • The practice’s complaint handling procedures had been reviewed to ensure that the appropriate management of verbal complaints were included. Staff were made aware of the procedure to follow. We saw that four complaints had been received since the last inspection. Records available showed that these were responded to in a timely manner, they detailed the action taken, contact was made with the complainant and the improvements made and any learning was shared with staff.

At this inspection we found that the practice had addressed all the concerns raised and is now rated as good for providing safe services.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

27 June 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Shoeb Suryani on 27 June 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.
  • Staff understood their responsibilities to raise concerns and to report incidents and near misses; however the practice did not have a formal system in place for sharing learning with staff of the outcomes of significant events, incidents and accidents.
  • The practice did not have formal systems in place for the ongoing monitoring of significant events, incidents and accidents to ensure any changes made were appropriate.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • The practice ensured that staff were supported to attend training both within and outside of the practice 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 but not easily accessible to patients. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of written complaints and concerns. Verbal complaints were not monitored.
  • The practice was aware of the needs of its local population and had implemented changes and engaged with the local community to support meeting these needs.
  • Patients were concerned about the length of time they waited to get a routine appointment and the time spent waiting to be seen at an appointment. Urgent appointments were available the same day.
  • The practice facilities were well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by the management.
  • The practice proactively 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.

There were areas of practice where the provider must make improvements:

  • Ensure necessary employment checks are completed for all staff employed and the required information in respect of persons employed by the practice is held.

There were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements:

  • Review the practice’s system for the ongoing monitoring of significant events with a view to preventing further occurrences and, ensuring that improvements made are appropriate.
  • Review the practice’s arrangements for sharing alerts, best practice guidance and that the learning outcomes from significant events, incidents and near misses with staff.
  • Review complaint handling procedures and establish a system for identifying, receiving, recording, handling and responding to verbal complaints.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

25 June 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our announced inspection we spoke with five patients and five members of staff. We later spoke with a spokesperson from the patient participation group (PPG) who was also a patient. One patient told us: 'I can't fault this practice. I have had more help from X (the doctor) than when I was at another practice for nine years". Another patient told us: 'It's quite good. I am satisfied".

We saw that patient's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and that they where treated with dignity and respect. When patients received care or treatment they were asked for their consent and their wishes were listened to.

Staff had received training in safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. They were aware of the appropriate agencies to refer safeguarding concerns to that ensured patients were protected from harm.

Patients were cared for in a clean and organised environment. Systems were in place for regular monitoring of the standards of hygiene so that the risk of infections to patients were minimised.

The provider had systems in place for monitoring the quality of service provision. There was an established system for regularly obtaining opinions from patients about the standards of the services they received. This meant that on-going improvements could be made by the practice staff.