Pinner View Medical 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, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.
 

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. At the last assessment in July 2025, the practice failed to ensure all contracts were in place to ensure the premises were maintained. During this assessment, we found that all contracts were in place to ensure the premises were maintained and that 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. Appraisals were seen for both salaried and locum staff. New staff were given an induction checklist. The service worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. At the last assessment in July 2025, we found gaps in training and recruitment files for staff. During this assessment, we found that all staff had the required training and recruitment information in place.
 

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.

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 managed prescription stationery appropriately and securely. Staff regularly checked the stock levels and expiry dates for all medicines, including emergency medicines and vaccines. The practice had medical oxygen and a defibrillator for use in a medical emergency.

During our last assessment in July 2025, we found that the practice had not monitored some patients who were prescribed bisphosphonate and that these patients required an up to date Bone Density (DEXA) scan and a review of medication. During this assessment, we found no concerns regarding this.

During our last assessment in July 2025, we found that, contrary to national guidelines, there was not a consistent follow up within a week of steroids being prescribed for some patients with asthma who had been prescribed 2 or more courses of rescue steroids. During this assessment we found issues again in there not being a consistent follow up in accordance with national guidelines. We also found that some patients with hypothyroidism did not have adequate monitoring. We found 4 patients on teratogenic medication who were not informed about risk. Teratogenic drugs are medicines or substances that can interfere with embryonic or foetal development, potentially causing structural defects, growth restriction, or functional abnormalities.

Prescribing data we reviewed showed the number of patients prescribed of pregabalin or gabapentin per 1,000 patients was significantly better than the England average. Our searches showed an observation of 37‰ and the national average was 137‰. Pregabalin and gabapentin have a well-defined role in the management of several disabling long-term conditions, including epilepsy and neuropathic pain; and, for pregabalin, generalised anxiety disorder. The number of patients prescribed psychotropic medicines was better than the national average. We observed 4% and the national average was 7%.