Archived: Dr Vinod Chandhok

Updated 6 February 2017

The Dr Vinod Chandhok practice is located in Edmonton, North London within the NHS Enfield Clinical Commissioning Group. The practice holds a Personal Medical Services contract (an agreement between NHS England and general practices for delivering primary care services to local communities). The practice provides a full range of enhanced services including childhood vaccination and immunisation, extended hours access, dementia support, risk profiling and case management, rotavirus and shingles immunisation and unplanned admissions.

The practice is registered with the Care Quality Commission to carry on the regulated activities of treatment of disease, disorder or injury, and maternity and midwifery services, diagnostic and screening procedures.

The practice had a patient list size of 4,642 at the time of our inspection.

The staff team at the practice included one principal GP (male), one salaried GP (male), one practice nurse (female), and one practice manager. The practice had six administrative staff. There were 14 GP sessions and six nurse sessions available per week.

The practices opening hours are:

• Monday to Friday from 8.00am to 6.30pm

Appointments with GPs are available at the following times:

• Monday to Friday from 9.00am to 12.00pm and 3.00pm to 6.00pm

Extended hours appointments are:

• Monday from 6.30pm to 9.00pm

Outside of these times patients are seen at a local out of hours provider.

To assist patients in accessing the service there is an online booking system, and a text message reminder service for scheduled appointments. Urgent appointments are available daily and GPs also complete telephone consultations for patients.

Updated 6 February 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Vinod Chandhok on 21 September 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 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.

• 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 are:

• To review and improve patient satisfaction scores in relation to accessing routine appointments and waiting times for booked appointments.

• Review how patients with caring responsibilities are identified and recorded on the patient record system to ensure information, advice and support is made available to them.

• Review and improve the uptake for childhood immunisations and vaccinations.

• All staff to be trained in the use of the newly purchased defibilator.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 6 February 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions.

• The practice nurse had a lead role in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority.

• The percentage of patients on the diabetes register, with a record of a foot examination and risk classification within the preceding 12 months was 88% compared to the CCG average of 86% and the national average of 88%.

• Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

• All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met. For those patients with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Updated 6 February 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people.

• There were systems in place to identify and follow up children living in disadvantaged circumstances and who were at risk, for example, children and young people who had a high number of A&E attendances. Immunisation rates were in line with local averages for all standard childhood immunisations.

• The percentage of patients with asthma, on the register, who have had an asthma review in the preceding 12 months that includes an assessment of asthma control using the three Royal College of Physicians questions was 81% compared to the CCG average of 76% and the national average of 75%.

• Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies.

• Same day appointments always made available for children and young people.

Updated 6 February 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people.

• The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population.

• The practice was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs.

• All patients over the age of 75 had a named GP.

• Longer appointments were available when needed.

Updated 6 February 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students).

• The needs of the working age population, those recently retired and students had been identified and the practice had adjusted the services it offered to ensure these were accessible, flexible and offered continuity of care.

• The practice was proactive in offering online services as well as a full range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group.

• The practice offered telephone consultations should they be required as well as follow up.

• NHS health checks offered for patients aged 40 to 74.

Updated 6 February 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

• The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of patients experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia.

• The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

• The practice had a system in place to follow up patients who had attended accident and emergency where they may have been experiencing poor mental health.

Updated 6 February 2017

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.

• The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including homeless people, travellers and those with a learning disability.

• The practice offered longer appointments for patients with a learning disability.

• The practice regularly worked with other health care professionals in the case management of vulnerable patients.

• The practice informed vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

• Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in vulnerable adults and children. Staff were aware of their responsibilities regarding information sharing, documentation of safeguarding concerns and how to contact relevant agencies in normal working hours and out of hours.