You are here

Dr Satnam Sodhi Good Also known as SMS Medical Practice

Reports


Review carried out on 4 December 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr Satnam Sodhi on 4 December 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 31 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 of Dr Satnam Sodhi on 31 October 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good. The full comprehensive report on the October 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Satnam Sodhi on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 31 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 31 October 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, including those related to recruitment checks.
  • The provider had up to date policies on safeguarding and there was a new system in place to ensure that staff read and signed the policies.
  • The provider took action to ensure all staff were aware of how to access the practice’s business continuity plan.
  • All completed appraisal records included assessment of staff performance.
  • Unpublished data for long term conditions provided by the practice showed there had been improvements in patient outcomes.
  • Although some improvements had been made to improve the cervical screening uptake which included providing information in different languages, the uptake continued to be below local and national average. For example, Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data for 2015/16 showed the cervical screening uptake for the practice was 67%, which was below Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) average of 77% and national average of 81%.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Monitor and continue to consider ways to improve the uptake of cervical screening.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 31 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Satnam Sodhi on 31 October 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 were aware of their responsibilities relating to safeguarding children and vulnerable adults; however, the practice’s safeguarding policy contained outdated information.
  • Overall, risks to patients were assessed and well managed, with the exception of those relating to recruitment checks.

  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • Data showed patient outcomes in some areas were low compared to the national average.
  • The practice had carried-out full cycle audits which demonstrated quality improvement.
  • 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, however, some of the information contained in the advertised complaints policy was outdated. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Most 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 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 must make improvement are:

  • They must ensure that their recruitment processes adequately mitigate risks to patients.

In addition, they should take the following action:

  • Raise awareness with all staff of the business continuity plan.
  • Regularly review all policies and check they contain up to date information.
  • Monitor and continue to consider ways to improve the uptake of cervical screening.
  • Take action to improve outcomes for patients with long-term conditions and to increase the uptake of childhood immunisations.
  • Ensure that appropriate records are kept of appraisal meetings.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 7 February 2014

During a routine inspection

Staff within the practice consisted of the service provider, a locum GP, a practice manager, practice nurse and reception/administration staff.

Patients had access to a wide range of information and health promotion leaflets. We noted some information on how to access emergency treatment was displayed in other languages. Patients were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment.

When we spoke with patients, all comments were positive and included: "The GP always has time to listen and you never feel rushed", "This practice is much better than my previous GP", "I have never had a problem getting an appointment, the staff are very helpful and the doctor has been very good" and "The doctor explains everything and if I ask anything he makes sure I understand".

We found staff had an appropriate understanding of safeguarding referrals and the requirement to share sensitive information to safeguard patients. Policy guidance was in place.

The environment was clean and maintained to a good standard. Cleaning schedules were in place and were undertaken by an external company. These were monitored by the practice manager.

The practice had a range of policies, procedures and guidance in place for staff to access, which supported the safe management of the service.

We found that the provider had taken steps to ensure staff were appropriately qualified, skilled and experienced for their jobs.

We saw evidence that the provider had an effective system in place to monitor quality and safety.