• Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Dr Ramaswamysetty Venugopal Also known as Esk Road Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

12 Esk Road, London, E13 8LJ (020) 7474 9002

Provided and run by:
Dr Ramaswamysetty Venugopal

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 28 September 2016

The Dr Ramaswamysetty Venugopal practice (also known as the Esk Road Medical Centre) is situated within NHS Newham Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). The practice provides services to approximately 2,050 patients under a GMS contract and provides a full range of enhanced services including childhood immunisations and IUCD (also known as the “coil”) fitting.

The practice is registered with the Care Quality Commission to carry on the regulated activities of Maternity and midwifery services, Family planning services, Treatment of disease, disorder or injury, and Diagnostic and screening procedures. It has two floors and is located within a converted shop. All patient areas are on the ground floor and are wheelchair accessible.

The staff team includes a lead male GP working eight sessions per week, a regular male locum GP working two sessions per week, two female practice nurses (one working 12 hours and the other 10 hours per week), a full time practice manager, and a team of reception, secretarial and administrative staff.

The practice is open weekdays from 9.30am to 6.30pm except on Wednesday when it closes at 12.00pm. Core appointments times are from 9.30am to 11.00am weekday mornings and in the afternoons from 2.00pm to 3.30pm on Monday, 2.00pm to 4.00pm on Tuesday and Friday, and 4.00pm to 6.00pm on Thursday. Extended hours appointments are offered every Tuesday 6.30pm to 8.00pm. Home visits, telephone consultations and pre-bookable appointments are available including online in advance. Urgent appointments are also available for people that need them. Patients telephoning for an out of hour’s appointment are transferred to the Newham cooperative deputising service, including on weekdays between 8.00am and 9.30am.

Information published by Public Health England rates the level of deprivation within the practice population group as three on a scale of one to ten. Level one represents the highest levels of deprivation and level ten the lowest. It has a higher than average population of people whose working status is unemployed at 9% compared to the national average of 5%, and is comparable to Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) average of 11%. The average life expectancy for the practice was comparable to CCG and national averages for males (78 years at the practice, 77 years within the CCG, and 79 years nationally) and females (82 years at the practice, 82 years within the CCG and 83 years nationally).

The practice was selected as a finalist for the General Practice Awards 2012 and the lead GP told us this could not have been achieved without the teamwork and co-operation of all the staff.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 28 September 2016

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Ramaswamysetty Venugopal on 30 March 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • Significant events recording systems were not formally structured but the practice had identified and managed them effectively to improve safety.
  • Practice specific policies were implemented and were available to all staff.
  • Most arrangements for identifying, recording and managing risks, issues and implementing mitigating actions were robust.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 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.

Areas of practice where the provider should make improvements:

  • Implement systems to ensure consistent clinical equipment cleaning, and staff induction and training including fire safety and infection control.
  • Review process documentation for significant events and meetings to strengthen risk management and quality improvement.
  • Review arrangements for ensuring patients are aware of translations services.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

People with long term conditions

Good

Updated 28 September 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions.

  • Nursing staff had lead roles in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.
  • Performance for diabetes related indicators was 90% compared to the CCG average of 87% and the national average of 89%
  • Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.
  • Patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met. For those patients with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Families, children and young people

Good

Updated 28 September 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people.

  • There were systems in place to identify and follow up children living in disadvantaged circumstances and who were at risk, for example, children and young people who had a high number of A&E attendances.
  • Immunisation rates were relatively high for all standard childhood immunisations and for those given to under two year olds ranged from 88% to 100% (CCG ranged from 82% to 94%), and five year olds from 89% to 100% (CCG ranged from 82% to 94%).
  • 98% of patients diagnosed with asthma, on the register had an asthma review in the last 12 which is significantly better than 75% nationally.
  • Patients told us that children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals, and we saw evidence to confirm this.
  • The practice’s uptake for the cervical screening programme was 84%, which was comparable to the CCG average of 81% and the national average of 82%.
  • The practice had a relatively high population of children and working age females and provided child health surveillance and women’s health services, including contraception.
  • Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

Older people

Good

Updated 28 September 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people.

  • The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population.
  • The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.
  • The percentage of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, on the register, who had had a face-to-face annual review in the preceding 12 months was 100% which was comparable to 91% within the CCG and 91% nationally.

Working age people (including those recently retired and students)

Good

Updated 28 September 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students).

  • The needs of the working age population, those recently retired and students had been identified and the practice had adjusted the services it offered to ensure these were accessible, flexible and offered continuity of care.
  • The practice was proactive in offering online services as well as a full range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group.
  • Patients aged 40–74 had access to appropriate health assessments and checks that were followed up where abnormalities or risk factors were identified.

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)

Good

Updated 28 September 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

  • Performance for mental health related indicators was 89% compared to the CCG average of 87% and national average of 93%
  • The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.
  • The practice carried out advance care planning for patients with dementia.
  • The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.
  • The practice had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency where they may have been experiencing poor mental health.
  • Staff had a good understanding of how to support patients with mental health needs and dementia.

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable

Good

Updated 28 September 2016

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.

  • The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including homeless people and those with a learning disability.
  • The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.
  • The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people.
  • The practice informed vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.
  • Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in vulnerable adults and children. Staff were aware of their responsibilities regarding information sharing, documentation of safeguarding concerns and how to contact relevant agencies in normal working hours and out of hours.