You are here

Drs Eno and Partners Good Also known as Trinity Medical Centre

Reports


Review carried out on 12 February 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Drs Eno and Partners on 12 February 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.

Inspection carried out on 20 March 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Drs Shah and Partners, also known as Trinity Medical Centre name on 20 March 2017. 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 a system in place for reporting and recording significant events which staff understood.
  • The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance.
  • Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect although the figure for being involved in decisions about their care and treatment was below the local and national average for GPs.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients we spoke with 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 the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Ensure systems to ensure patient group directives are signed by the same designated person.

  • Ensure care plans for patients with asthma contain all the required information, including what the patient should do in the event of an emergency.

  • Develop a schedule of audit in relation to patients’ health and treatment needs rather than those required by the Clinical Commissioning Group.

  • Record verbal complaints to include actions taken.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 29 April 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our last inspection in December 2013 we identified areas where the provider was not meeting the essential standards of quality and safety. We found some staff were not adequately supported through formal induction procedures and there was lack of evidence to indicate they had read the practices policies and procedures and received the appropriate training.

We found the provider did not conduct audits for cleaning of the premises, hand washing, infection control or medication. Staff meetings were infrequent and minutes inadequate.

We requested from the provider to send us an action plan to tell us how the service would become compliant with the regulations. We reviewed the action plan and carried out this inspection to review improvements.

We found the service had made improvements and was meeting the essential standards of quality and safety.

Inspection carried out on 2 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We visited the Trinity Medical Centre; we did not visit the Cavendish Road surgery. We spoke with seven people who used the service. They felt that the General Practitioner (GP) spent time listening to their concerns and explained any treatment needed. Comments we received included, �everything is fine, the only issue is getting through on the telephone�, �they do a good job here�, �no problems�, �you sometimes wait a long time to see the doctor� and �it�s changed over the years, all for the better�.

We spoke with the Patient Participation Group (PPG) who were involved in reviewing patient feedback questionnaires. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service people received although audits were not carried out.

People were involved in making decisions about their care. If they needed to be referred to a specialist this was explained and they were able to express a preference of where they were referred to.

People were treated by suitably qualified and skilled staff that received appropriate professional development although staff did not receive regular supervision.

There was equipment to deal with medical emergencies.

There were procedures in place to ensure that staff were able to identify and respond appropriately to safeguarding children and vulnerable adults.