Archived: Dr Umesh Kumar Roy

Updated 28 May 2015

Dr UK Roy is a GP practice which provides a range of primary medical services under a GMS contract to around 1900 patients from a surgery in the centre of Leicester city. The practice’s services are commissioned by Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). The service is provided by one part time male GP, two part time male locum GPs, a part time practice nurse and a part time healthcare assistant. They are supported by a practice manager and reception and administration staff.

Local community health teams support the GPs in provision of maternity and health visitor services.

The practice has one location registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which is at Fosse Family Practice, 16, Fosse Road South, Leicester, LE3 0QD.

We reviewed information from Leicester City clinical commissioning group (CCG), and Public Health England which showed that the practice population had similar deprivation levels compared to other practices within the CCG but higher than the average for practices in England.

When the surgery is closed the out of hours service is provided to Leicester City, Leicestershire and Rutland by Central Nottinghamshire Clinical Services.

Updated 28 May 2015

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr UK Roy on 19 January 2015. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

Specifically, we found the practice to require improvement for providing safe and effective services. It also required improvement for providing services for all the population groups. It was good for providing a caring, responsive and well led service.

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

• Not all staff understood their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses and the system in place for reporting incidents was not clear. Information about safety was not consistently recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
• The practice did not have robust systems, processes and policies in place to manage and monitor risks to patients, staff and visitors to the practice.
• Data showed patient outcomes were average for the locality. Although some audits had been started, we saw no evidence that audits were driving improvement in performance to improve patient outcomes.
• 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.
• Urgent appointments were usually available on the day they were requested.
• The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity, but there were some policies not in place.

• The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

• Ensure there is a robust system to manage and learn from significant events.
• Ensure audits of practice are undertaken, including completed clinical audit cycles.
• Ensure all staff have appropriate policies, procedures and guidance to carry out their role.
• Ensure there are formal governance arrangements in place including systems for assessing and monitoring risks and the quality of the service.
• Address identified concerns with infection prevention and control..
• Ensure confidential patient records are stored securely.

In addition the provider should:

• Review recruitment arrangements to include all necessary employment checks for all staff.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 28 May 2015

The practice is rated as requires improvement for the care of people with long term conditions.The provider was rated as good for caring, responsive and well led overall and this includes for this population group. The provider was rated as requiring improvement for providing safe and effective care. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group.

The practice nurse held regular clinics and reviewed patients with long term conditions such as asthma, diabetes and hypertension. Patients were seen regularly by the GP to review their medication. Care plans were in place for patients with long term conditions as part of the unplanned admissions enhanced service. Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed.

Updated 28 May 2015

The practice is rated as requires improvement for the care of families, children and young people.The provider was rated as good for caring, responsive and well led overall and this includes for this population group. The provider was rated as requiring improvement for providing safe and effective care. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group.

The practice worked with the health visitor and community nurses and shared information about vulnerable children, children with protection plans or looked after children.

The practice offered flexible appointments for children and young people outside of school and college hours.

Neonatal checks, postnatal checks and six week baby checks were undertaken at the practice by the GP.

Updated 28 May 2015

The practice is rated as requires improvement for the care of older people.The provider was rated as good for caring, responsive and well led overall and this includes for this population group. The provider was rated as requiring improvement for providing safe and effective care. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group.

The practice offered proactive, personalised care to meet the needs of the older people in its population and had a range of enhanced services, for example, in dementia and avoiding unplanned admissions. It was responsive to the needs of older people, and offered home visits and longer appointments for those with enhanced needs. Where appropriate the practice were able to make a referral to a care navigator. Care navigators were employed by Leicester City Council and funded by Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group in a joint commitment to improve and retain good general health and wellbeing in older patients over 75.

Updated 28 May 2015

The practice is rated as requires improvement for the care of working age people (including those recently retired and students). The provider was rated as good for caring, responsive and well led overall and this includes for this population group. The provider was rated as requiring improvement for providing safe and effective care. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group.

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 flexible. Appointments were available on Saturday mornings. The practice was proactive in offering online services as well as a range of health advice and information. Patients who were unable to attend the phlebotomy clinic on weekdays were offered an appointment with the GP for blood tests.

Patients between the age of 40 and 74 are offered NHS health checks for the early detection of conditions such as diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol.

Updated 28 May 2015

The practice is rated as requires improvement for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). The provider was rated as good for caring, responsive and well led overall and this includes for this population group. The provider was rated as requiring improvement for providing safe and effective care. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group.

The practice had identified a list of patients who were at risk of dementia and needed an assessment. A patient status alert has been added to all the patient records. An assessment was carried out with the patients who were at risk to identify those who needed referral to a dementia screening clinic.

Patients experiencing poor mental health were referred to appropriate services such as the mental health team or the open mind service.

The practice maintained a register of patients experiencing mental health issues.

Updated 28 May 2015

The practice is rated as requires improvement for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.The provider was rated as good for caring, responsive and well led overall and this includes for this population group. The provider was rated as requiring improvement for providing safe and effective care. The concerns which led to these ratings apply to everyone using the practice, including this population group.

The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances such as those with a learning disability. It had carried out annual health checks for people with a learning disability and offered longer appointments for people with a learning disability.

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.