You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Raj Medical Centre on 9 September 2021. 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 Raj Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 23 November 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Raj Medical Centre on 23 November 2019. 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.

Inspection carried out on 13 April 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Raj Medical Centre on 13 April 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 assessed and well managed.

  • 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 strong and visible clinical and managerial leadership and governance arrangements. Staff felt supported by 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 (i.e. any patient harmed by the provision of a healthcare service was informed of the fact and an appropriate remedy offered, regardless of whether a complaint had been made or a question asked about it).

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • Early dementia referral rates were twice the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) average; the practice rate was 124 compared to CCG average of 62. The practice achieved higher than average QOF figures for mental health indicators (practice achievement ranged from 93% to 100% compared to the national range of 84% to 90%).

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 8 August 2013

During a routine inspection

Patients told us their privacy and dignity was respected by staff. They also said they were provided with information about treatment options to enable them to make informed choices. Comments included, �The staff are very helpful. They always listen to me and are very professional� and �I was offered a chaperone yesterday.�

Patients spoken with told us they were happy with the care and treatment they received. Comments included, �They are a very forward thinking practice�, �The out of hours system works really well� and �The doctors are great and much better than my previous GP.�

We found the practice was clean and tidy and there were systems in place to prevent and control the spread of infection. Comments from patients included, �The staff wear gloves all the time.�

We found medicines were stored and managed appropriately.

We found staff worked well as a team, had access to training and were supported in their roles by management. Where there were gaps in training, these had been identified and courses planned.

We found there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided to patients. This included checks and surveys to obtain patients views so that improvements could be made.