Plympton Health Centre

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 in July 2015, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains unchanged.

We evidenced a breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment because the service had a backlog in summarising patient records (summarising is the process of looking at peoples records and extracting an accurate medical history in chronological order).

We evidenced the provider had an action plan put into effect to make improvements and the action they were intending to take in response to our findings, with the aim to complete the backlog within the next few months.

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 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.

People felt supported to raise concerns and felt staff treated them with compassion and understanding. Representatives from the Patient Participation Group (PPG felt the provider took concerns seriously and proactively made improvements to the service. Managers encouraged staff to raise concerns when things went wrong.

During clinical meetings, the GPs, clinicians and practice manager discussed and learnt from clinical issues. Minutes of these meetings were shared with all staff.

Staff felt there was an open culture, and that safety was a priority. The provider had processes for staff to report incidents, near misses and safety events.

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.

There were systems for processing information relating to new patients. However, the service had a backlog of approximately 3000 records awaiting summarising. The service was aware of this and recruited new staff to help to complete the backlog since the beginning of 2025, but the progress was impacted by further staff leaving. Between the dates of 1 and 6 October 2025, the provider had assessed and reviewed these, and had applied a red, amber, green (RAG) rating to the backlog, which ensured that high-risk notes (red) were summarised as a priority and lower-risk notes (green) were summarised in a timely manner. We evidenced that between these dates; 100 records had been completed. The provider had developed an action plan with the aim to complete the backlog within the next few months. Evidence from November 2025, showed the provider had cleared the backlog of 3295 documents that required to be summarised and had amended their process to prevent a future backlog.

The service worked with other providers to deliver shared care and when patients moved between services.

Referrals were managed in a timely way. There was a system and process for monitoring and managing two week wait referrals, which all staff knew and understood.

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.

Staff were aware of safeguarding policies and were appropriately trained in safeguarding procedures. The practice maintained a list of vulnerable people and acted on concerns in partnership with other organisations. A review of safeguarding records showed that alerts were appropriately placed on patient records and their household family members.

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.

Emergency equipment was available and maintained. Staff could recognise a deteriorating patient and knew of action to take. We reviewed staff training records for sepsis awareness and evidenced all reception staff had received this training.

People were advised on risks related to their condition and actions to take if their condition deteriorated.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

There were contracts to ensure the premises were maintained. Health and safety risk assessments and audits had been undertaken and risks identified had either been addressed or had an action plan with timescales for these to be completed.

There was a business continuity plan, made up of several documents and policies, and governed by the objectives of the service.

The results of the equipment calibration were unclear. Although reports showed equipment had been calibrated, the stickers on the equipment did not match the documentation. We evidenced that some equipment had not been calibrated and we raised this with the provider. Between 1 and 6 October 2025, the provider had scheduled calibration for the previously missed equipment and replaced the uncalibrated equipment to ensure they were not in use.

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.

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

Staff told us of how they were supported to achieve career progression. The service implemented protected continuous professional development time for all clinicians, allowing them to complete their mandatory training and develop in areas that benefit people’s care. Staff were encouraged to attend courses and share new skills and knowledge with the wider staff team. The service also encouraged staff to undertake placements within secondary care settings to enable learning and development.

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.

The service had a designated infection prevention and control (IPC) lead and all staff received relevant training. There were cleaning schedules which were followed. Risk assessments and audits were completed. In addition, quarterly IPC meetings were held. Meeting minutes showed the service, and all branch sites were discussed, issues identified, and action plans completed to address these in a timely manner.

The overall IPC audit was good and included multiple audits such as handwashing and hand hygiene audits, environmental cleanliness and waste management.

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

Staff involved people in reviews of their medicines and helped them understand how to manage their medicines safely. This was accurately recorded in people’s consultation records. People knew what to do and who to contact if their condition did not improve or they experienced any unexpected symptoms.

As part of our assessment a number of set clinical record searches were undertaken by a CQC GP specialist advisor. These searches were visible to the practice. We found that people who were prescribed high-risk medicines were monitored appropriately in most cases.

There was a programme of regular clinical audits of prescribing that focused on improving care and treatment.

The service had a dispensary located at one of the branch sites. There were suitable processes for staff to follow when dispensing medicines. Medicines including controlled drugs were stored securely and at appropriate temperatures. Staff regularly checked the stock levels and expiry dates for all medicines, including emergency medicines, vaccines, and controlled drugs. Waste medicines were recorded and disposed of appropriately, including medicines returned by people using the service.

Staff received regular training, were competency assessed on medicines optimisation, and felt confident managing the storage, administration and recording of medicines.

Staff managed prescription stationery appropriately and securely. Staff followed protocols to ensure they prescribed all medicines safely, and ensured people received all recommended medicines reviews and monitoring.

The service had effective systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls.

The service stored medical gases, such as oxygen, safely and completed required safety risk assessments.

Staff took steps to ensure they prescribed medicines appropriately to optimise care outcomes, including antibiotics.