• Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Rana Chowdhury

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

Oak Lodge, 6 Oak Road, Harold Wood, Romford, Essex, RM3 0PT (01708) 342139

Provided and run by:
Dr Rana Chowdhury

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

We carried out an announced assessment at Dr Rana Chowdhury Oak Lodge, 6 Oak Road, Harold Wood, Romford on the 7 and 12 August 2024. We carried out this assessment because we had not inspected the practice since 2017 and the concerns that were raised with CQC regarding the practice. The assessment reviewed 4 quality statements from the key questions safe and effective. The quality statements reviewed were safe and effective staffing, medicines optimisation, assessing needs and delivering evidence-based care and treatment. During the assessment we found: - The review of patient records found the records did not always facilitate continuity of care and allow another clinician to take over the care of the patient. Some did not include sufficient information to understand the patient’s assessment and management of the patient’s condition, and this may have impacted on a patient’s health. We did not find assurances that medicines were being consistently prescribed safely. At the time of the assessment, the practice did not have fully effective systems in place to ensure safe recruitment and staff competency. We are placing this service in special measures.

18 October 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Rana Chowdhury on 11 January 2017. The overall rating for the practice was inadequate and the practice was placed in special measures for a period of six months. The full comprehensive report on the January 2017 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Rana Chowdhury on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was undertaken following the period of special measures and was an announced comprehensive inspection on 18 October 2017. Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. The practice learnt from significant events.
  • There was no child safeguarding policy in place despite external contact details being available. However since the inspection, the practice has provided evidence of a new child safeguarding policy that has been implemented.
  • Improvements had been made to the governance of the practice which had impacted on patient outcomes.
  • Risks to patients who use the services were well managed.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect, and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • 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.
  • Staff had knowledge of the practice vision and there was a business plan to support this vision and the practice strategy.

However, there were also areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

The provider should:

  • To continue 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 all.

I am taking this service out of special measures. This recognises the significant improvements made to the quality of care provided by the service.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

11th January 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Rana Chowdhury on 11 January 2017. Overall the practice is rated as inadequate.

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. However, reviews, investigations and learning was not always effective.
  • Although risks to patients who used services were assessed, the systems and processes to address these risks were not in all instances implemented well enough to ensure patients were kept safe, specifically in relation to mandatory training, fire drills, portable appliance testing (PAT) and implementing recommendations from a recent legionella risk assessment.
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity, but there was no evidence to confirm that staff were following them.
  • The practice did not have a mission statement and their staff had no knowledge of the practice vision.
  • The practice did not have a business plan and had no strategy for the future.
  • The governance arrangements at the practice were not effective.
  • Not all staff were able to fully utilise clinical computer systems

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Put a system in place to ensure mandatory training, in particular fire safety, safeguarding and infection control, is up-to-date.

  • Establish risk assessments and procedures for the monitoring of high risk medicines, actions identified in the recent Legionella risk assessment must be acted on.

  • Improve the monitoring of patients on high risk medicines.

  • Investigate safety incidents thoroughly and ensure that the procedures are adhered to and there are effective reporting systems in place.

  • Establish a system for disseminating and acting upon national patient safety alerts to ensure staff are aware of the process.Review what emergency drugs are kept and the system for ensuring they are fit for purpose.

In addition the provider should:

  • Develop an ongoing programme of clinical audit and re-audit to ensure outcomes for patients are maintained and improved.

  • Establish a system to monitor prescriptions that had not been collected.

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

  • Ensure staff have the capability to utilise clinical computer systems.

On the basis of the ratings given to this practice at this inspection 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

19 September 2013

During a routine inspection

People who used the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them. We saw that staff dealt with people in a polite and friendly way. People told us that the doctor was good at explaining different types of treatment options. One person told us, 'the doctor is brilliant, he will listen to me and then explain things'.

We found that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Care plans we looked at were person centred and were developed around individual needs. People we spoke with were positive about the surgery. One person told us, 'I don't think that they could really improve, I am more than happy'. Another person said, 'the doctor is very good'.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. People told us that they felt safe at the surgery and felt comfortable with reporting any concerns they had to staff.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Prospective staff were interviewed by the GP to ensure that they had the suitable skills and experience for the particular role. We saw that the practice carried out employment checks to verify qualifications, references and identity.

People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. We saw that learning from incidents, complaints and investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented. We examined a number of recent 'significant events' that had been recorded by the practice. We spoke to the practice manager about one of them. They explained what had happened and how the surgery had changed its practice to prevent the same situation arising in the future.