The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr WHM Matta & Partners

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Leagrave Surgery, Luton, Bedfordshire, LU4 9QZ (01582) 572817

Provided and run by:
Dr WHM Matta & Partners

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 WHM Matta & Partners 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 WHM Matta & Partners, you can give feedback on this service.

10 December 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focussed inspection at Dr WHM Matta & Partners, also known as Leagrave Surgery, 10 December 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

We decided to undertake an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us. This inspection looked at the following key questions:

  • Effective
  • Well-led

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 and good for all population groups.

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. Current best practice guidelines were followed.
  • Clinical audit was used to demonstrate quality improvement.
  • Unverified data showed the practice had made improvements to performance indicators.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
  • Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and informed us they were supported by the practice management and GP partners.
  • The practice was working as part of a Primary Care Network to maintain and improve the services they offered. This helped the practice as they were restricted in expanding clinical services due to the size of their premises.
  • The practice uptake for cervical screening was below the 80% NHS England target.
  • The practice did not have an active Patient Participation Group (PPG). They had made plans with their Primary Care Network to form a network wide PPG

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Increase the uptake of cervical screening for eligible patients in the practice.
  • Continue to work with patients to sustain a PPG.

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

4 May 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr WHM Matta and Partners on 4 May 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 equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. They had plans in place to extend their building to provide improved services for patients.
  • 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.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Implement a process to ensure that patients are requesting repeat prescriptions especially for high risk medicines or medicines for mental health related conditions.
  • Continue to identify and support carers.
  • Continue to monitor newly implemented process for the use of blank prescription pads.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

5 February 2014

During a routine inspection

During our inspection on 5 February 2014, we spoke with nine people sitting in the waiting area. They told us they found the service to be welcoming, with friendly staff. We observed the staff spoke with people politely and considered privacy and confidentiality at all times. People we spoke with told us they had confidence in the surgery staff. One person said, 'I have never had a problem here.' Another person said, 'They give you time to talk, which is rare these days.' Some people told us they did not like the new system being trialled, which allowed a person requiring an appointment to have a same day telephone consultation with one of the GPs. Other people told us this was an invaluable service that could prevent them from having to attend the surgery.

The surgery was based over two floors with the waiting room on the ground floor. We were told that people with mobility problems would always be seen on the ground floor. This was particularly important as there was no alternative access to the first floor.

Information was clearly displayed throughout the surgery for people using the service, including health promotion, information about the practice, the services available, as well as how to raise any concerns if someone was not happy with the service provided.