The Lonsdale Medical Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe and effective staffing

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.

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. The practice shared concerns with other providers for further investigation when appropriate. The practice used the twice-weekly clinical meetings to identify and share learning as a team. Staff reported there was an open culture and they would feel able to report any incident without delay. Representatives from the Patient Participation Group (PPG) said the practice team took concerns seriously and proactively made improvements to the service. Several people providing feedback for this assessment commented that the service had noticeably improved recently.

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 practice proactively reviewed the lists, for example, to ensure that young people turning 18 continued to receive support if needed. The practice cross-checked the safeguarding information they held with the local social services safeguarding team every six months to ensure they were up to date.

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 made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked well together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

There were a range of clinical and non-clinical roles within the practice. The practice worked with new clinical recruits to establish a clear scope of practice and competencies with that individual. We found training was up to date, learning needs and development of staff were managed appropriately, and staff were working within their agreed areas of competence. Safe recruitment practices were followed. The practice was an accredited training practice, providing supported placements for doctors training to become GPs. We spoke with a trainee who was wholly positive about their training experience at the practice.