Abbey Medical Practice

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

We assessed 2 quality statements from this key question. We combined the scores for this area with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question remains good. We found when things went wrong, staff acted to ensure people remained safe. Managers investigated all reported incidents and learning was shared in team meetings. We found there were some gaps around reviewing some patients who required monitoring in line with guidance. The practice took immediate action to investigate and follow up on these patients.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There was information in the waiting room and on the practice website advising patients on how to make a complaint via telephone, email or in person. There was also a link on the practice website to the friends and family test where patients could leave anonymous feedback.

People were encouraged and felt supported to raise concerns when things went wrong. Learning and agreed actions from incidents were shared with staff in regular team meetings. Staff felt there was an open culture, and that safety was a top priority.

The provider had effective processes for staff to report incidents, near misses and safety events. Incidents and complaints were appropriately investigated, and lessons were learnt resulting in changes that improved care for others.

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.

Results from the national patient survey demonstrated that 80% of patients said they had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses which was above the local and national averages. People’s feedback in relation to the safe management of their medicines was limited and mixed. Some people told us they felt involved in the review of their medications whilst one person told us they did not.

Staff followed protocols to ensure they dispensed medicines safely. Staff were supported by the GP’s and could readily contact a GP to answer queries.

The practice held appropriate emergency equipment and emergency medicines. Emergency equipment and medicines were checked regularly for expiry dates, but the practice did not record evidence of all the stock levels. Emergency medicines and equipment were readily available in an emergency, but the container was not tamper proof. This meant there was a lack of an effective system or process within the practice to track and monitor the stock. In response to our feedback, the practice took immediate action and rectified the gaps we identified. Staff had the appropriate authorisations to administer medicines (including Patient Group Directions (PGD) or Patient Specific Directions). We reviewed a sample of PGDs and found these had been appropriately signed by staff and authorised by a GP.

The practice had a policy in place for the management of medicines, but our clinical searches showed this was not always effective. In response to our feedback the practice took immediate action and held clinical meetings to discuss the findings and updated their processes. For example, they created a new process to ensure all patients with asthma with 2 or more courses of steroids were followed up within a week. There were suitable processes for staff to follow when dispensing medicines.

With the consent of the practice, a CQC GP Specialist Advisor (GP SpA) accessed the practice's systems remotely to undertake a series of searches on the practice’s clinical records system. These searches indicated that there were some gaps around reviewing some patients who required monitoring in line with guidance. We discussed our findings with the practice, and we saw evidence that they took immediate action to further investigate and follow up on these patients.