The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Vridhagiri Nandini

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

52 Eastcourt Lane, Twydall, Gillingham, Kent, ME8 6EY (01634) 232144

Provided and run by:
Dr Vridhagiri Nandini

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 Vridhagiri Nandini 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 Vridhagiri Nandini, you can give feedback on this service.

11 January 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr Vridhagiri Nandini on 11 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.

14/12/2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Vridhagiri Nandini on 14 December 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

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 outstanding for its treatment of people with long-term conditions and good for the remaining population groups.

People with long-term conditions:

This population group was rated outstanding for effective because:

  • there was evidence that the diagnosis of long-term conditions was higher than that nationally. There was evidence that the outcomes for patients with long-term conditions were consistently better than the local and national results.

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.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

16 December 2014

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Vridhagiri Nandini’s practice on 16 December 2014. During the inspection we gathered information from a variety of sources. For example; we spoke with patients, interviewed staff of all levels and checked that the right systems and processes were in place.

Overall the practice is rated as good. Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing well-led, effective, caring, responsive and safe services. It was also good for providing services for the populations groups we rate.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected 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 and addressed and learning was routinely shared with staff.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Patient outcomes were at or above average for the locality.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment and that 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 proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice