Oviva UK Ltd

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 looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Staff felt supported to raise concerns. Managers encouraged staff to raise concerns when things went wrong. During staff meetings, teams discussed and learnt from clinical issues. Staff felt there was an open culture, and that safety was a top priority. The provider had processes for staff to report incidents, near misses and safety events. There was a system to record and investigate complaints, and when things went wrong, staff apologised and gave people support.

Learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes that improved care for others.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

There were systems in place for processing information relating to new service users. The service worked with other providers to deliver shared care and when people moved between services. Referrals and discharge from the service were managed in a timely way.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Safeguarding policies were in place and known to staff, who were appropriately trained in safeguarding procedures. The service maintained a list of vulnerable people and acted on concerns working in partnership with other organisations.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People were regularly monitored for both side effects and treatment efficacy, and were advised on risks related to their condition and actions to take if their condition deteriorated.

The service used a serviced address as its main base where individual desks and meeting rooms were available. As the service was digital and call-based consulting only, there were no clinical premises. The service had risk assessments in place.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Staff and leaders told us that there had been a significant increase in workload in summer 2025, but that the service had recruited to and filled posts quickly. Staff that we spoke to who had been more recently recruited told us that onboarding and induction processes had worked effectively.

There were a range of clinical and non-clinical roles within the service. We found training was up to date, learning needs and development of staff was managed appropriately, and staff were working within their agreed areas of competence. Safe recruitment practices were followed.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. As the service did not have a clinical premises, specific location-based risk assessments and cleaning schedules were not required, although the serviced office provider had undertaken risk assessments at the headquarters.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Staff involved people in reviews of their medicines and helped them understand how to manage their medicines safely. People knew what to do and who to contact if their condition did not improve or they experienced any unexpected symptoms. Staff followed protocols to ensure they prescribed all medicines safely, and ensured people received all recommended medicines reviews and monitoring. The provider had effective systems to manage and respond to safety alerts.