• Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Dr Awadh Jha

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

16 Tunbury Avenue, Walderslade, Chatham, Kent, ME5 9EH (01634) 668814

Provided and run by:
Dr Awadh Jha

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

11 November 2014

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 Awadh Jha on 11 November 2014. Overall the practice is rated as inadequate.

Specifically, we found the practice inadequate for providing safe, effective, responsive and well-led services. It was also inadequate for providing services for older people, people with long-term conditions, families, children and young people, working age people (including those recently retired and students), people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable, and for people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). Improvements were also required for providing caring services.

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

• This practice is run with one GP only.

• The practice nurse had left the practice in recent months and there had been no recruitment of

staff to replace them.

• The secretarial staff as well as a practice manager had left the practice in recent months and

there had been no recruitment of staff to replace them.

• The practice was clean and patients told us they had no concerns with the cleanliness of the

practice.

• Patients were happy with the care treatment and support they had received. Patients told us they

had been involved and felt included in decisions about their care, treatment and support at the

practice.

• Patients were happy with the appointment system and said they could obtain an appointment

when they needed one and were able to get through to the practice on the telephone.

• The practice did not gather feedback from patients so that had the opportunity to improve or

influence the service they received and did not have a patient participation group (PPG).

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

• Ensure the availability of appropriate medicines and equipment to deal with a medical

emergency.

• Ensure that medicines are stored correctly and safe to use.

• Protect patients and others who may be at risk of inappropriate or unsafe care and treatment, by

means of the effective operation of quality assessment and monitoring systems.

• Seek feedback from patients who use the service.

• Review their recruitment processes to help ensure that staff employed at the practice are safe to

work with vulnerable children and adults.

• Ensure sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled persons are employed at the practice to

meet patient’s needs.

• Ensure that staff are up to date with mandatory training.

• Review staff records and ensure they are kept up to date.

• Revise patient records to help ensure they are up to date and contain key information such as

allergies, reactions to medicines and medical histories.

On the basis of the ratings given to this practice at this inspection, (and the concerns identified at a previous inspection on 29 October 2013), I am placing the provider into special measures. This will be for a period of six months. We will inspect the practice again in six months to consider whether sufficient improvements have been made. If we find that the provider is still providing inadequate care we will take steps to cancel its registration with CQC.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP)

Chief Inspector of General Practice

29 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We found that people's individual needs were assessed at each visit and care and treatment was planned and delivered to maintain people's welfare and safety. There were arrangements in place for dealing with foreseeable emergencies.

People were not protected from the risk of abuse because staff were not trained in protection of children and vulnerable adults and there was no policy in place for the safeguarding of vulnerable adults.

People were not protected against the risks associated with infection because there were not appropriate arrangements in place for staff to follow.

Medicines were not always kept securely, and the processes to ensure the security of medicines and prescription pads had not been risk assessed.

There were not effective systems in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service.