The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Dr Dhanumjaya Rao Chunduri

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Sparkbrook Community and Health Centre, 34 Grantham Road, Birmingham, West Midlands, B11 1LU (0121) 334 0200

Provided and run by:
Dr Dhanumjaya Rao Chunduri

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

All Inspections

24 June 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at the Balaji Surgery on 24 June 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led services. It was also good for providing services for older people; people with long-term conditions; families, children and young people; working age people; people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable and people experiencing poor mental health.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, including those relating to recruitment checks.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Most patients we spoke with and from patient feedback in CQC comment cards and patient satisfaction survey information told us that patients felt they were able to make an appointment with a named GP, there was continuity of care and urgent appointments available the same day. They also told us that they felt they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. This did not fully align with the national GP patient satisfaction survey (January 2015) which indicated that some patients had experienced difficulty making appointments and did not always feel involved in decisions about their care.
  • The practice was above average for most areas of the quality outcomes framework (QOF) for 2014, however they were below average in relation to some diabetes indicators and cervical screening. We saw that the practice had taken steps to address this.
  • 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.

There were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly the provider should:

  • Provide more detailed information for carers to ensure that all avenues of support are open to them.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

11 October 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an inspection on 16 July 2013 and found that the provider was in breach of Regulation 21. There were no formal staff recruitment procedures in place. This meant that the provider was unable to demonstrate safe recruitment practices.

During this inspection we found that staff recruitment procedures had been developed. We saw evidence that actions had been taken that demonstrated safe and effective systems were in place. This meant that patients were protected from the risks of harm from the employment of inappropriate staff.

16 July 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our announced inspection we spoke with six patients, two members of the Patient Participation Group (PPG) and four members of staff. The role of the PPG is to act as an advocate when patients want to raise issues and to liaise with senior staff in influencing the overall quality of service provision.

When patients received care or treatment they were asked for their consent and their wishes were listened to. One patient told us: "If I like the treatment I agree to it".

We saw that patients views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and that they were treated with dignity and respect. The patients we spoke with provided positive feedback about their care. A patient said: "I am happy here. I like it here".

Staff had received training in safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. They were aware of the appropriate agencies to refer safeguarding concerns to that ensured patients were protected from risks of abuse.

Patients were cared for in modern purpose built premises. The provider had ensured that the premises had been well maintained to ensure a safe environment for patients' visits.

We found that there were no formal recruitment systems in place. This meant that patients were not fully protected from risks of harm.

The provider had systems in place for monitoring the quality of service provision. Patients opinions were regularly requested so that staff could make on-going improvements.