Dr Rachel Ng & 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 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. Healthcare professionals from partner organisations gave very positive feedback to us about the effectiveness of communication and the way the practice worked with them to meet the needs of patients.

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. There were arrangements in place to check the competency of staff in extended clinical roles. 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 lead and all staff had had relevant training. Cleaning schedules were in place and followed. Risk assessments and audits were completed, and actions taken to mitigate risks.

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. Staff received regular training, were competency assessed on medicines optimisation, and felt confident managing the storage, administration and recording of medicines. Staff managed prescription stationery appropriately and securely. Staff followed protocols to ensure they prescribed all medicines safely, and ensured people received all recommended medicines reviews and monitoring. Medicines including controlled drugs were stored securely and at appropriate temperatures. Staff regularly checked the stock levels and expiry dates for all medicines, including emergency medicines, vaccines, and controlled drugs. Waste medicines were recorded and disposed of appropriately including medicines returned by patients. Staff stored medical gases, such as oxygen, safely and completed required safety risk assessments. The provider had effective systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls.

Staff followed established processes to ensure people prescribed medicines with specific risks received recommended monitoring, with the majority of monitoring undertaken in a timely and effective way. There were some small areas of risk that the practice addressed following the site visit. For example, patients prescribed certain medicines to treat and prevent blood clots should have monitoring of their renal system to check for potential risks. Our clinical searches found a small number of patients (8 out of 162) where the available monitoring results had not been used to calculate the function of the renal system. The practice took action to address this following feedback. We found there was a risk the practice was not warning patients of the risks of diabetic ketoacidosis and Fournier’s gangrene when prescribed certain medicines used to treat type 2 diabetes, heart failure and chronic kidney disease. These medicines are typically initiated by hospital consultants, with ongoing prescribing transferred to the practice once the patient is established and stable on the treatment. During our clinical searches we checked 5 records for patients prescribed these medicines and found there was no evidence the practice had warned patients about these risks. Prior to the site visit, the practice confirmed they had contacted the patients on these medicines to make them aware of these potential side effects.

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 higher than national averages, however, was showing a downward trend. We identified several patients (47 out of 209) prescribed medicines normally used for the treatment of neuropathic pain and epilepsy that had not had a coded medicine review. The prescribed usage of these types of medicines can lead to dependency and misuse, and medicine reviews help to identify and address concerns of this type. Following the clinical searches feedback, the practice put in place a 3-month action plan to contact and invite in these patients for medicine reviews. We found some examples where medicine reviews were coded, but they lacked detail as to what had been considered and reviewed. The practice confirmed prior to the site visit that this finding had been highlighted to clinical staff alongside reminders of the expectation of what should be recorded when undertaking a medicine review.

There was a programme of regular clinical audits of prescribing that focused on improving care and treatment.