Archived: Dr Nityananda Hati-Kakoty

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We inspected Dr Nityananda Hati-Kakoty on 21 November 2014. This was a comprehensive inspection. This means we reviewed the provider in relation to the five key questions leading to a rating on each on a four point rating scale. We assessed all six of the population groups and the inspection took place at the same time as we inspect a number of practices in the area overseen by Wigan and Leigh Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).

The overall rating for Dr Nityananda Hati-Kakoty was good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• Systems were in place for ensuring the practice was regularly cleaned. We found the practice to be clean at the time of our visit. A system was in place for managing infection prevention and control.
• The practice had systems in place to ensure best clinical practice was followed. This was to ensure that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and was based on the best available evidence.
• Information we received from patients reflected that practice staff interacted with them in a positive and empathetic way. They told us that they were treated with respect and always in a polite manner.
• A care plan was in place for patients who had a high risk of an unplanned hospital admission. These were managed and updated by the practice nurse who regularly visited patients at risk to assess any changes and ensure they were involved in their plan of care.
• Patients spoke positively in respect of accessing services at the practice. Open surgeries were held for patients to access the GP on the day of their choice, and appointments could be made to see the practice nurse.
• There was a very small staff team and a single handed GP. They all worked closely together as a team, there was very little staff turnover or sickness, and all staff felt well supported and work with training being provided appropriately.

We found areas of outstanding practice:

• The practice operated an open surgery system for accessing GP consultations. This meant that patients could attend during the surgery session of their choice and they were guaranteed a consultation with the GP.
• Appointment times were not fixed so patients were seen for as long as was required. This meant that where more explanation and discussion was needed the GP or practice nurse was able to do this. Patients highlighted this as a positive part of the practice; they did not feel rushed and felt they were fully informed with all aspects of their care.
• Prior to any longer holiday weekends the GP spoke with patients who had been identified as having a particularly high risk of an unplanned hospital admission. This was to ask if there was anything they required.

There is an area where the provider must make improvements:

• The dignity, privacy and independence of young people under 16 who have the legal capacity to consent must be ensured, and these young people must be treated with consideration and respect.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice