• Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr R K Arora

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Lyng Centre For Health & Social Care, Frank Fisher Way, West Bromwich, West Midlands, B70 7AW (0121) 612 2222

Provided and run by:
Dr R K Arora

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 R K Arora 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 R K Arora, you can give feedback on this service.

23 September 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced inspection at Dr R K Arora on 23 September 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Set out the ratings for each key question

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring – Good (rating carried forward from previous inspection)

Responsive – Good (rating carried forward from previous inspection)

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 16 January 2020 the practice was rated Requires Improvement overall and for the key questions of effective and well led. The practice had achieved a rating of good for providing safe, caring and responsive services.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr R K Arora on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a focused inspection of the Safe, Effective and Well-led key questions to follow up on any breaches of regulations and areas the practice should improve that were identified at the previous inspection.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

  • Conducting clinical staff interviews using video conferencing
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • A short site visit

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as Good overall and good for all population groups with the exception of Working age people (including those recently retired and students) which we rated as requires improvement.

We found that:

  • The practice had recruited a number of staff within the past 12 months and there was now a stable workforce in place. The management team had been strengthened with the addition of an assistant practice manager and one of the salaried GPs was becoming a GP partner.
  • The new GP partner had implemented processes for the continuous monitoring of practice procedures, clinical outcomes and clinical registers to ensure improvements were maintained.
  • The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. This included enhanced infection control procedures.
  • Governance arrangements had been strengthened to ensure risks to patients were considered, managed and mitigated appropriately.
  • Effective procedures for the management of medicines had been strengthened to ensure patients received the appropriate reviews. This included the appropriate monitoring of patients on hypnotic medicines.
  • Monitoring reports were in place to review quality indicators and regular audits were completed to improve patient outcomes.
  • Risk management processes were in place and we found assessments of risks had been completed. These included fire safety, health and safety, and infection control. This ensured that risks had been considered to ensure the safety of staff and patients and to mitigate any future risks.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Continue to encourage patients to attend cervical screening appointments.
  • Continue to strengthen processes for the reviewing and actioning of safety alerts.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

16 January 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We decided to undertake an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us. This inspection looked at the following key questions.

  • Effective
  • Well-led

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as requires improvement overall and requires improvement for people with long term conditions and people experiencing poor mental health.

We found that:

  • The practice had lost a significant number of staff within the last 12 months. This had affected the services ability to deliver effective care for patients. Particularly those with long term conditions and people experiencing poor mental health.

  • The staffing challenges faced by the practice had impacted its ability to deliver quality care. There was a lack of oversight of systems and processes, this demonstrated that the way the practice was led and managed did not always promote the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.
  • Ensure persons employed in the provision of the regulated activity receive the appropriate training and professional development necessary to enable them to carry out the duties.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to explore ways to improve uptake of cervical cytology uptake.
  • Consider ways to engage patient groups for service development.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

30 March 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

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

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

  • Risks to patients were mainly assessed and well managed. There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • 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. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients 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.
  • 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.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • The provider should ensure that clinical audits are completed in order to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice