Woolpit Health Centre Also known as Dr Pearson & Partners

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 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 practice 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) told us the practice took concerns seriously and proactively made improvements to the service. Managers encouraged staff to raise concerns when things went wrong. Concerns were anonymised to promote transparency and staff confidence in raising issues. There were 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, the secretary team runs a weekly 2 week wait referral search to check whether there are any referrals on patient records that have not been tasked. If any are identified, the appropriate action is taken. Regular complaints and significant event meetings were held. Learning outcomes were recorded and shared with the staff team as appropriate.

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 with a weekly referral audit conducted to help ensure all had been sent as required. We reviewed pathology and task lists on the practice clinical system. This showed they had been addressed on the day.

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. Staff members spoken with were aware of the safeguarding lead and deputy and of the process for reporting concerns. The practice maintained a list of vulnerable people and acted on concerns working in partnership with other organisations. For example, monthly multidisciplinary meetings were held with vulnerable patients reviewed and action to be taken recorded directly into their clinical record. Partner agencies spoken with gave positive feedback regarding staff awareness of safeguarding and the engagement of the practice.

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, including community defibrillators, that the practice checked regularly. Staff could recognise a deteriorating patient and knew of action to take. GPs and a mentor GP were available every day for advice and support as required. 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. Staff spoken with told us they had suitable and sufficient equipment to undertake their work and were satisfied with the health and safety arrangements in place. 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. Safe recruitment practices were followed including Disclosure and Barring (DBS) checks. The professional registration of clinical staff was checked at recruitment and on an ongoing basis. New staff received an induction, and their competency was assessed during their probationary period to ensure capability and safe practice. Staff told us they worked within their agreed areas of competence. Staff members spoken with told us they were supported to develop and undertook additional training and learning as identified in their appraisal.

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 staff members had completed relevant training. The practice had a clear schedule for managing IPC audits. The IPC lead completed an annual audit, and additional daily, weekly and monthly audits were also completed. IPC meetings were held which also identified areas where action was required and were used to share information. An IPC risk assessment had been undertaken. Staff members spoken with told us they knew the systems for ensuring infection was prevented and controlled.

During our on-site visit, we observed the service to be clean and tidy. We noted a number of bins in non-clinical areas did not have lids. The practice took action to address this immediately. Cleaning schedules were in place and followed. The practice undertook a monthly cleaning audit to identify areas where action was required. Appropriate arrangements were in place to manage clinical waste. We noted that although clinical waste was in a lockable space, lockable storage bins were not in place. The practice took action to address this immediately.

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.

The practice operated a hybrid dispensing model, meaning it ran an NHS pharmacy on site and dispensed directly to eligible rural patients from the GP practice. Leadership and accountability for the dispensing service were clearly defined. The service also took part in the national Dispensing Services Quality Scheme (DSQS), which sets standards for GP practices that dispense. People could choose how to receive their medicines, including a 24‑hour automated collection station. A medicines delivery service supported people who were unable to leave their homes.

A multidisciplinary medicines team was in place, including pharmacists and pharmacy technicians within the practice, pharmacy and a Primary Care Network (PCN) team. Pharmacy staff employed by the practice had appropriate access to clinical records to support safe decision‑making. Competence was overseen through structured training and regular education, including updates on the medicines safety reporting system.

Systems supported safe prescribing and supply. Repeat prescribing was well controlled, and paper prescription forms (FP10s) were stored securely with full logging. High‑risk medicines were checked before supply, with escalation to a clinician when monitoring was due. Controlled Drugs (CDs) were recorded in a digital register, with routine balance checks.

Patient Group Directions (PGDs) were in place to allow the nurse to give vaccinations without a prescription, and these had been appropriately authorised for use.

The practice coordinated medicines changes effectively. Hospital discharges were reconciled promptly, and any discrepancies were resolved through direct links with local hospitals.

National medicines safety alerts from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) were received, actioned and recorded. Audit activity, including antimicrobial prescribing, supported safe and appropriate use of medicines. The team promoted learning through multiple reporting routes and regular discussion of near misses and incidents. Recent safety‑alert searches were reviewed with clinical leads, and no outstanding concerns were identified.