The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Uday Kanitkar Also known as Moss Side Medical Centre

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

16 Moss Side Way, Leyland, Lancashire, PR26 7XL (01772) 623954

Provided and run by:
Dr Uday Kanitkar

Important: We are carrying out a review of quality at Dr Uday Kanitkar. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment 17 May 2024 to 6 June 2024. The practice registered with the Care Quality Commission as Dr Uday Kanitkar is also known as Moss Side Medical Centre. The assessment was carried out to assess if improvements had been made following an earlier inspection in August 2023. The practice was rated inadequate following that inspection and it was placed into special measures. This assessment examined the main areas of concern identified in August 2023, and we did not look at all quality statements. We have rated the practice as inadequate overall. During this assessment we saw that although some improvements had been made, especially around the clinical issues we identified, improvements were still required due to the governance not being effective. We found there continued to be 3 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing and good governance. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.

30 and 31 August 2023

During a routine inspection

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection at Dr Uday Kanitkar, also known as Moss Side Medical Centre, on 30 and 31 August 2023. Overall, the practice is rated as inadequate.

We rated each key question as follows:

Safe – Inadequate

Effective - Inadequate

Caring - Good

Responsive – Requires improvement

Well-led – Inadequate

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

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out this inspection to follow up concerns that had been reported to us. It was a full comprehensive inspection looking at all 5 key questions.

How we carried out the inspection

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing and face to face discussions.
  • Requesting written feedback from staff and patients.
  • 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 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 found that:

We rated the provider as inadequate for providing safe services. This was because:

  • Care was not always provided in a way that kept patients safe and mitigated the risk of avoidable harm.
  • The environment was cluttered, poorly maintained and not conducive to good infection prevention and control (IPC). Cleaning schedules and IPC audits were not recorded.
  • Medicines were not managed safely in line with best practice recommendations.

We rated the provider as inadequate for providing effective services. This was because:

  • There was a lack of oversight and ineffective systems and processes to manage staff mandatory training compliance, provide effective clinical supervision and regular appraisals.
  • Procedures around the implementation and management of DNACPR orders, mental capacity considerations and best interests were not reliable.

We rated the provider as good for providing caring services. This was because:

  • Patient feedback was good and confirmed staff treated patients with kindness and respect. Patients felt involved in decisions about their care.

We rated the provider as requires improvement for providing responsive services. This was because:

  • Information, such as from complaints and significant events, was not used for learning and improvement.

We rated the provider as inadequate for providing well-led services. This was because:

  • Leaders had not identified the risks we found during the inspection.
  • Processes to monitor performance, assure quality and drive improvement were not established.
  • Systems for managing risks were not effective.
  • Policies were not managed well and not always followed.
  • Confidential records were not stored securely.

We found 3 breaches of regulations. The provider must:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • 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 support, training, professional development, supervision and appraisal necessary to enable them to carry out their duties.

In addition, the provider should:

  • Continue to take steps to increase the uptake of cervical screening.

Due to the breaches of regulation identified we will be carrying out further enforcement action against the provider. I am placing this service in special measures. The Care Quality Commission will refer to and follow its enforcement processes in taking action reflecting these circumstances. The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted.

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

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

15 December 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection June 2016 – Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Uday Kanitkar’s practice on 15 December 2017 as part of our inspection programme to inspect 10% of practices before April 2018 that were rated Good in our previous inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes. We saw however that some incidents were not always recorded using the significant event reporting form. This meant that actions taken were not always reviewed as part of the significant event process.
  • There were risk assessments in place to help manage risk although we noted that the premises risk assessment for legionella needed updating. (Legionella is a term for a particular bacterium which can contaminate water systems in buildings.)
  • Staff were supported in personal development and training and received regular appraisal.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines. We saw that clinical audit was carried out although there was no formal regular audit of non-medical prescribing.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
  • There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Update the legionella risk assessment for the building to include the additional patient treatment rooms.
  • Consider reviewing the criteria for reporting significant events.
  • Look to implement a system for formal audit of non-medical prescribing.
  • Continue to take steps to identify patients on the practice list who are also carers.
  • Review hard copies of practice policies and procedures to ensure that they are all up-to-date.
  • Consider formal documentation of clinical meetings in order to share learning.
  • Review the practice complaint reporting procedure in order to ensure that the practice policy is followed.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

17th June 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Kanitkar (also known as Moss Side Medical Centre) on 17th June 2016. 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 an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.

  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

  • 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.
  • Information about the services provided 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.
  • 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.

The areas where the provider should make improvements :

  • Ensure that the recruitment policy is updated to include Disclosure and Barring Service checks (DBS) for clinical staff and those in the role of chaperone.
  • Consider the introduction of easy read material for patients with learning disabilities.
  • Ensure that patients in caring roles are identified and given appropriate support.

We found one area of outstanding practice:

  • Staff were awarded a Quality Teaching Practice Gold Award from the University of Manchester for excellence in teaching students.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice