The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr. Jeyanathan and partners Also known as Clifton Rise Family Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Waldron Health Centre (Suite 2), New Cross, SE8 4BG (020) 3830 8110

Provided and run by:
Dr. Jeyanathan and 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. Jeyanathan and 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. Jeyanathan and partners, you can give feedback on this service.

25 January 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr. Jeyanathan and partners on 25 January 2020. 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 May 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 at Dr. Jeyanathan and partners on 20 April 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the April 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr. Jeyanathan and partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 4 May 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 20 April 2016. 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:

  • The practice had taken action on all of the areas identified for improvement.

  • There were clearly defined and embedded systems, processes and practices in place to keep patients safe and safeguarded from abuse.

  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

  • There was an overarching governance framework which supported the delivery of the strategy and good quality care. This included arrangements to monitor and improve quality and identify risk.

    However, the provider should:

  • Monitor complaints handling to ensure consistent responses in line with guidance.

  • Verify that Control of Substances Hazardous to Health assessments are correctly completed, to ensure appropriate precautions are in place.

  • Monitor systems to ensure all areas of the premises are clean and tidy.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

20 April 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr. Jeyanathan and partners on 20 April 2016. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

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

  • Some risks to patients were not well assessed and well managed. There was no clear lead for infection prevention and control, and no practice-specific policies. Although the practice was generally clean, we found some issues with cleanliness and sharps disposal that should have been detected by the practice systems. Vaccine fridge checks and checks of emergency equipment were not happening consistently.
  • Data from the national GP patient survey showed patients rated the practice below others for several aspects of care.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed that patients’ satisfaction with how they could access care and treatment was below local and national averages. The practice taken made changes, but it was too early for us to see evidence that this had improved patient satisfaction.
  • Governance arrangements were not sufficiently robust. Not all of the policies we would expect were in place, staff records were incomplete and systems were not effective to ensure that all staff had completed the necessary training. There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • 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.
  • 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 acted on feedback from staff and patients.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Implement formal governance structures for assessing and monitoring all risks, including those present in the practice premises, policies and procedures to prevent and control infection, and safe and proper management of vaccines.

  • Ensure that there are sufficient medicines in the practice and taken on home visits to deal with medical emergencies, taking into account the patient population and the services provided. Ensure that emergency equipment is checked regularly.

  • Maintain complete staff records and implement an effective system to ensure that all staff have completed mandatory training.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review the business continuity plan to ensure it is complete and up-to-date.

  • Review patient satisfaction scores with access to services.

  • Review how patients with caring responsibilities are identified and recorded on the clinical system to ensure information, advice and support is made available to them.

  • Maintain complete records of complaint handling, and implement a system to allow learning from analysis of trends.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We reviewed the information sent to us by the provider. We found that people who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

24 January 2014

During a routine inspection

Most of the six people we spoke with were positive about the care and treatment they received. Two of the people we spoke with were representatives of the practice's patient participation group (PPG), they told us they had no concerns about the practice and the services it provided. One person said, 'the practice provides a very professional, person-centred approach to treatment.' Another person told us, 'I have no complaints; the practice has a team of very approachable doctors, nurses and receptionists.' Another told us they were happy with the service they received now but had previously requested, and been granted, a change of doctor.

People told us they felt involved in decisions about their care, were mostly provided with clear information and understood the treatment and choices available. There were mixed views regarding the availability of appointments. People told us they were able to get an appointment most of the time. Some found it frustrating trying to get through to reception in the morning. Sometimes, when they did get through, no more appointments were available on the day, so they came to the walk in service available at the site.

Care was planned and delivered in way to ensure people's safety and welfare. We saw up to date plans that set out people's care and treatment needs, identified potential risks to their health and showed their agreement was sought in the care and treatment provided.

There were procedures in place to safeguard people from abuse. However, these were not sufficient to ensure people were fully protected from the risk of abuse.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place and people were supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided. People who used the service gave feedback through patient surveys on service quality and delivery. The service had a patient participation group which provided support and advice to the practice on behalf of patients. The service had systems to manage and review incidents and complaints.