Bushloe Surgery

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

There was a proactive culture when learning from events. We found staff were knowledgeable within their role and shared experiences to support development. There were processes in place to review and monitor medicines and treatments to meet people’s needs and remain safe. However, we identified some patients at risk. We spoke with the practice manager about these patients and they were already aware and had developed an action plan to address this risk. Where we identified patients at risk the practice were responsive and provided an updated action plan within 24 hours to ensure patient safety.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Patient feedback regarding learning culture was limited. However, information we did receive was positive stating they felt listened to when raising concerns and changes were made when appropriate.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities and knew how to identify and report concerns and safety incidents. The practice demonstrated they managed significant events and complaints appropriately and staff were involved in identifying any learning. Staff were positive towards leadership and felt able to raise concerns to all members of the leadership team, they felt listened to and respected when doing so.

Feedback and learning from significant events and complaints was shared with staff via their managers and at staff meetings. The provider presented learning events via slideshows during meetings and discussed where things went well and could be improved. Information on how to make a complaint was displayed in the patient waiting area and the practice website. Significant event reporting forms were available to all staff to access from the practice computer system or verbally to the leadership team.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Patient feedback regarding medicines optimisation was limited. However, information we did receive was positive stating they felt doctors understood their needs and involved them in decision making. Patients stated they had no issues with obtaining prescriptions and had experienced a good service when needing reviews.

Staff told us that they involved patients in decisions about their medicines during reviews and assessments. We found that staff had good knowledge of the patient population. Staff told us how they obtained patient consent and how they refer to other services when appropriate,

During our on-site assessment, we reviewed the medical fridges and emergency medicines and found robust systems in place to ensure in date and ready to use equipment and medicines. We found prescription storage and processes surrounding this were adequate.

The practice provided evidence of documented protocols for the management of medicines. There was a process for monitoring patients’ health in relation to the use of medicines including medicines that required monitoring (for example, warfarin, methotrexate and lithium) with appropriate monitoring and clinical review prior to prescribing. The remote review of patients who were prescribed medicines that required monitoring was generally well managed and showed patients received appropriate blood monitoring prior to medicines being prescribed. However, we found some patients being prescribed a high number of short acting beta 2 agonist. The practice had identified this prior to our inspection and had recently adapted their policy around prescribing to make improvements. The practice took immediate action with these patients by arranging reviews. The practice had a system for recording and acting on safety alerts. However we reviewed a safety alert which identified patients at risk due to the effects of the medicine prescribed. We identified that newly prescribed patients had been made aware of the risk but historically prescribed patients had not. The practice were responsive and discussed the findings with the pharmacy team to understand the process and how these patients were not identified through their searches and took action to address this.

The practice were undertaking audits to improve the quality of care given to patients, the practice shared various audits and how patients care had been affected. The practice understood the benefits of regular audits and aimed to continue these as they were seeing a positive outcome for patients. The practice had leads in various clinical areas to ensure effective oversight and provide regular updates to clinical staff regarding patient outcomes through the changes in clinical care.