Newington Road Surgery Limited Also known as Newington Road 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 safety culture based on openness and honesty. Leaders listened to concerns, investigated safety events and used learning to drive continuous improvement.

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. For example, further training was provided to staff following a data breach.

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. Referrals and test results were managed in a timely way.

There were effective systems and processes in place to keep people safe.

The service had named adult and children safeguarding leads whom staff were aware of. 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. Staff were able to raise concerns externally if required.

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

The service did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure facilities supported the delivery of safe care.

A fire risk assessment was completed in January 2026; the assessment did not find any risks that required action. During the assessment, we saw some fire doors had been propped open, which reduces their effectiveness in the event of a fire. Staff told us 4 of the fire doors releases did not work and they had to prop open the doors because some people found them difficult to open. The service did not demonstrate they had assessed the impact of this. The fire risk assessment conducted in January 2026 had not identified this as a concern. After the assessment, the service told us they were arranging for a contractor to review and assess the doors and make changes if required. They did not advise on timescales for this work to be completed.

However, staff had completed annual fire safety training and the service carried out regular fire drills, with the most recent taking place in October 2025, to support compliance with safety protocols.

A health and safety risk assessment had been completed in January 2026. Risks had been identified and resolved. For example, ensuring trip hazards were removed.

There was a business continuity plan in place which was monitored and reviewed.

Contracts were also in place to ensure the premises and equipment were maintained. For example, routine legionella testing was now conducted, portable appliance testing and equipment calibration were routinely conducted by an external company.

Records demonstrated fire alarms and emergency lighting were tested regularly.

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 in the practice. We reviewed a sample of staff training records and saw all staff had received training appropriate to their role. We also reviewed a sample of 6 recruitment files and found safe recruitment practices were followed. The service completed competency audits by reviewing documentation against agreed competency standards. Audits were carried out by senior staff, who used audit tools to assess whether staff were working safely and within their scope of competence. Findings were recorded, shared with staff, and used to identify any further training or support needed.

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.

The service conducted an IPC audit in October 2025; the assessment did not find any risks that required action.

Staff vaccination was maintained in line with current UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) guidance.

The service did not always ensure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs.

We identified 48 people aged over 65 who had been prescribed medicines commonly used to relieve pain and reduce inflammation and people over 75 who had been prescribed medicines to prevent blood clots. We reviewed a sample of 5 records and found that all 5 had not been prescribed the recommended medicines to reduce the risk of potential complications in line with national guidance. The records did not demonstrate that the risks associated with these medicines had been discussed, whether treatment had been declined, or whether the recommended medicine had previously been tried and not tolerated.

After the assessment, the service told us that they had reviewed the 5 records included in our sample and had invited those requiring further assessment for a clinical review. The service also reviewed the remaining people identified through the clinical search and arranged clinical reviews where these were necessary.

We found that prescription stationery had not been tracked throughout the service in line with national guidance. We raised this with the service and following the assessment, the service had updated their systems and implemented a prescription tracking process.

However, we identified that appropriate monitoring was now in place for high-risk medicines, including for people prescribed immunosuppressant medicines and those prescribed medicines used to treat high blood pressure and heart failure.

We also reviewed a sample of medicine reviews and found they were of good quality, with clinicians considering each individual medicine prescribed.

The service had improved their systems to manage and respond to Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency alerts (MHRA – provide safety information, recalls and updates on medicines and medical devices). For example, we saw the service had taken appropriate action in response to an alert relating to a medicine used to treat overactive bladder symptoms.

Staff regularly checked stock levels and expiry dates for all medicines, including emergency medicines and vaccines. However, we identified the service did not have one of the recommended emergency medicines to treat seizures. They told us this was due to a national shortage. After the assessment, we reviewed a risk assessment which identified the use of alternative medicines to mitigate the risk. However, these alternative medicines were also not available at the time of the assessment, and the service had not identified this as a concern. Following the assessment, the service obtained the necessary medicines to ensure they could respond appropriately to medical emergencies.

There were systems and processes in place to monitor fridge temperatures to maintain the integrity of stored medicines.

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 service was in line with national averages.