Ladygate Lane 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

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 69 (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.

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 staff meetings, the whole team 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 patients. The service worked with other providers to deliver shared care and when patients moved between services. Referrals and test results 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 practice 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.

Emergency equipment was available and maintained. Staff could recognise a deteriorating patient and knew of action to take. Patients 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.

Contracts were in place to ensure the premises were maintained. Health and safety risk assessments and audits had been undertaken and risks identified had been addressed. There was a business continuity plan in place which was monitored and reviewed.
 

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 were a range of clinical and non-clinical roles within the practice. 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. The practice had a designated infection prevention and control (IPC) lead and all staff had had relevant training. Cleaning schedules were in place and followed.

Risk assessments and audits were completed and the provider had acted on issues identified in the most recent audit from July 2024. However, the audit had not identified that hand wash basins within clinical rooms were non-compliant with IPC guidelines as they contained overflows. After we raised this during the assessment, the provider sought advice on a risk management assessment from the IPC lead at the Integrated Care Board (ICB). The provider also obtained quotes to replace the sinks and was looking into improvement grants to assist with funding this work.We noted that the premises were clean and patients did not report any concerns about infection prevention and control.
 

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.

Our clinical searches and review showed the practice was generally prescribing safely. Patients prescribed the Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drug (DMARD) methotrexate, which is commonly used to treat autoimmune conditions, had the appropriate blood monitoring in place prior to a prescription being issued. Staff followed established processes to ensure people prescribed medicines with specific risks received recommended monitoring. However, our searches identified 3 patients over 75 prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicines or anticoagulant/antiplatelet medicines and not prescribed a protein pump inhibitor (a type of medicine that reduces stomach acid production). The provider reviewed these patients immediately and informed us that 1 patient was new to the practice and had yet to request a repeat prescription, 1 patient had received a PPI in the past but it had not been added to their repeat prescription, and 1 patient should have been offered a PPI. During our inspection, the lead GP consulted with these patients and a PPI was added to their repeat prescriptions.

The provider had systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls. Staff took steps to ensure they prescribed medicines appropriately to optimise care outcomes, including antibiotics. Prescribing data reviewed as part of our assessment confirmed this. For example, the number of antimicrobials issued by the provider was in line with national averages. There was a programme of regular clinical audits of prescribing that focused on improving care and treatment.

Staff received regular training and felt confident managing the storage, administration and recording of medicines. Staff managed prescription stationery appropriately and securely. Medicines were stored securely and at appropriate temperatures. Staff regularly checked the stock levels and expiry dates for all medicines, including emergency medicines and vaccines. Waste medicines were recorded and disposed of appropriately. Staff stored medical gases, such as oxygen, safely and completed required safety risk assessments.