You are here

Dr Srinivas Rao Dasari and Dr Raveendra Katamaneni Good Also known as Rowlands Road Surgery

Reports


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr Srinivas Rao Dasari and Dr Raveendra Katamaneni on 9 September 2021. 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 Srinivas Rao Dasari and Dr Raveendra Katamaneni, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 1 November 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr Srinivas Rao Dasari and Dr Raveendra Katamaneni on 1 November 2019. 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 27 March 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Srinivas Rao Dasari and Dr Raveendra Katamaneni, also known as Rowlands Road Surgery on 3 August 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the August 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Srinivas Rao Dasari and Dr Raveendra Katamaneni on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced follow up inspection carried out on 27 March 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the required improvements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 3 August 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Since our comprehensive inspection, which took place in August 2016 documents we viewed as part of our follow up inspection showed that lessons from incidents were shared. The practice was able to demonstrate that actions had been taken to prevent the same thing happening again.

  • Previously, documents we viewed showed that some risks were not effectively managed. For example, risk associated with the building, recruitment checks and business continuity planning. During the follow up inspection we saw that risk assessments were practice specific, staff had received immunity checks and training to enable them to carry out their role safely and effectively.

  • When we carried out our comprehensive inspection, governance arrangements were not effectively managed. As a result, some

    risks had not been identified or well managed and we saw some policies which were not practice specific. At the follow up inspection we saw that

    arrangements for identifying, recording and managing risks, and implementing mitigating actions had been established

    . Policies had been reviewed and were practice specific.

  • Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) performance during 2015/16 showed that the practice completed 75% of dementia reviews. Unverified data provided by the practice during the follow up inspection showed that this had increased to 80%. Staff we spoke with explained that this increase was due to correct recording and proactive identification of dementia patients.

  • Staff we spoke with during the comprehensive inspection explained that the last multidisciplinary meeting held to discuss patients with end of life care and complex needs had not taken place for over 12 months. Members of the clinical team we spoke with as part of this inspection told us that the practice ensured that end of life care was delivered in a coordinated way which took into account the needs of different patients, including those who may be vulnerable because of their circumstances. For example, the practice attended palliative care meetings every three months; we saw evidence of a meeting which took place in March 2017.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 3 August 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Srinivas Rao Dasari and Dr Raveendra Katamaneni’s practice on 3 August 2016. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

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

  • Staff understood their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. However, the practice was not proactive in utilising opportunities from incidents to support learning and service improvement.
  • We found systems were well implemented to safeguard vulnerable patients, for the management of medicines and for managing medical emergencies.
  • Although risks to patients who used services were assessed, the systems and processes to address these risks were not always sufficient to ensure patients were kept safe. For example, risks relating to infection control, health and safety, disaster recovery, recruitment and staffing.
  • There was limited capacity for the practice manager and practice nurse which reflected on some of the governance arrangements of the practice and performance data.
  • Data showed patient outcomes were in line with the national average in most areas.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with 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.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment and did not have to wait too long to obtain one, urgent appointments were available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. The practice had received few formal complaints.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. However, there was limited evidence that the practice was proactive in seeking feedback from patients to deliver service improvements.
  • The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity, but some of these were not practice specific.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Review systems for the identification and management of risks within the service. Including staffing, recruitment checks, those relating to health and safety of the premises, infection control and business continuity.

In addition the provider should:

  • Review system for reporting incidents and verbal complaints to identify how these could be more effectively used to support learning and service improvement. Ensure the complaints process is available to patients.
  • Introduce an alert system onto the patient record so that those at risk of harm may be more easily identified.
  • Review the coding of dementia patients to ensure all relevant patients are correctly identified and receive appropriate care and treatment.
  • Reinstigate formal arrangements to ensure the needs of those with end of life or complex care are discussed regularly.
  • Review and improve systems for obtaining patient feedback so that patients’ views may be taken into account when delivering services.
  • Maintain accurate staff training records to ensure training is up to date.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice