• Doctor
  • GP practice

Devaraja V C & Partner Also known as The Sorrells Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

7 The Sorrells, Stanford Le Hope, Essex, SS17 7DZ (01375) 641740

Provided and run by:
Devaraja V C & Partner

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Devaraja V C & Partner 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 Devaraja V C & Partner, you can give feedback on this service.

5 July 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Devaraja V C & Partner on 5 July 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.

4 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Devaraja V C & Partner on 25 February 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report for this inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link

for Devaraja V C & Partner on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

We then carried out a desk based focused inspection on 4 October 2016 to confirm that the practice were now meeting the legal requirements in relation to the breaches of regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 17 December 2015. This report covers our

findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • There was an effective governance system in place to assess and monitor risks and the quality of service provision.
  • Practice policies were reviewed and in date.
  • There were now systems in place for the medicines management of high risk medicines.
  • Oxygen with masks was available on the premises.
  • Practice policies and procedures were reviewed and updated.
  • There was a clear management structure and staff who had a clinical and management role had updated job descriptions and protected time to reflect this.
  • Staff in administrative roles had access to training to ensure they had the appropriate skills to fulfil their role. They were also given dedicated time to complete administrative duties.
  • Although audits and re-audits were completed there was little evidence of improvement to patient outcomes in the audit documentation.

However, there was also one area of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

The provider should:

  • Use the findings from completed audits to improve the services for patients.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

25 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Devaraja V C & Partner on 25 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

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 managed, but there was limited documentation to support this.
  • Data showed patient outcomes were mostly in line with local and national outcomes. Although some audits had been carried out, we saw limited evidence that audits were driving improvement in performance to improve patient outcomes. 
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment. Where staff needed to refer to other professionals this was completed in a timely manner.
  • All patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect. They told us they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was displayed, available in a number of ways and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice was restricted by its premises however staff made arrangements to ensure that they were able to treat all patients and meet their needs.
  • The practice had no clear leadership structure and limited formal governance arrangements.
  • The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity, but some had several versions which were not version or date controlled.
  • The practice sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider and staff were aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • Review systems in place for the medicines management of high risk medicines.
  • Implement formal governance arrangements including systems for assessing and monitoring risks and the quality of the service provision.
  • Ensure that oxygen is available on the premises with child and adult masks.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Review and update procedures and policies.
  • Have a clear management structure and accountability with job descriptions that support this.
  • Ensure staff in administrative roles have the appropriate skills and training to fulfil their role effectively.
  • Carry out re-audits of clinical audits to monitor and demonstrate sustained improvement of patient outcomes.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

30 December 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We conducted this inspection to follow up on compliance actions made following our last inspection on 02 October 2013 when we found concerns with regards to the provider's management of complaints.

During our inspection on 02 October 2013 we found that there was not an effective complaints system available and that complaints people made were not fully investigated or responded to appropriately.

During our inspection on 30 December 2013 we found that improvements had been made. We saw that there were notices informing people how to make a complaint and there was an up to date information leaflet informing people of the complaints procedure.

We saw that there was an updated complaints procedure in place. We saw that there was a system in place for complaints to be received, handled, investigated and responded to. There were appropriate arrangements in place with regards to complaints.

2 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We saw evidence that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the clinicians at the surgery acted in accordance with people's wishes. One clinician said, 'For any procedure, I explain it in a way that the person understands and I ask questions to check their understanding.'

We spoke with nine people about their care and treatment. They all gave positive comments. One person told us, 'The staff are extremely well trained, they are knowledgeable about my results and who I may need to be seen by.'

The surgery had taken steps to ensure that the people who used the service were protected from the risks of the spread of infection. We noted that the surgery was clean during our inspection.

We saw that staff were supported and received appropriate professional development. One member of staff said, 'You definitely get training if it is relevant to your role.'

We were told by three people that they had been asked for their views about the surgery. One person told us, 'I have been included in discussions about what happens at the surgery.' We also saw a comments book in the surgery waiting room. One person had written 'very pleased with all staff, they really care.'

We spoke with nine people who used the surgery about how to make a complaint. Eight people told us they would not know how to make a complaint. When complaints were made there was no evidence that they were investigated and responded to appropriately.