The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Worden Medical Centre

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

West Paddock, Leyland, Preston, Lancashire, PR25 1HR (01772) 423555

Provided and run by:
Worden Medical Centre

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 19 August 2026. Worden Medical Centre is a GP practice and delivers services to approximately 14,231 people under a contract held with NHS England. According to the latest available data, the ethnic make-up of the service area is approximately 96.2% White, 1.4% Asian, 1.7% Mixed, 0.5% Black and 0.3% Other. Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows deprivation within the service population group is in the 6th decile (6 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the service population is relative to others.

This was a focused assessment. We undertook this assessment due to the length of time since our last assessment. We assessed 10 quality statements from across all 5 key questions. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

SAFE - Environmental risks were not managed well; fire and health and safety risk assessments had not been completed for several years, fire safety checks were not carried out at the required intervals, and we identified some fire risks. The service did not collect all the required information before recruiting new staff. Staff kept facilities clean and maintained equipment appropriately. They assessed and managed the risk of infection and took some steps to control the risk of it spreading, however processes and policies were not well coordinated.

EFFECTIVE - Staff supported people to live healthier lives, monitoring their care and treatment to ensure they received positive and consistent outcomes.

CARING - Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, and respected their privacy and dignity.

RESPONSIVE - People could access care, treatment and support when they needed it. Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage groups of people who used the service and sought ways to address any barriers.

WELL-LED Some of the systems and processes we assessed, such as those relating to recruitment, fire safety, health and safety and prescription security, were not effective. The service had a vision and strategy, which considered the needs of the people who used their service and the wider community.

We found breaches of regulation in relation to good governance and fit and proper persons employed. We are using our enforcement powers to provide a timeframe within which the provider must improve the quality of the care they provide.

23 August 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice


We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Worden Medical Practice on 21 November 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement with the key questions of safe and well-led rated as requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the November 2016 inspection can be found on our website at

http://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-544128956

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 23 August 2017. This was to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 21 November 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

Overall the practice is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • At our inspection in November 2016 we found that although the practice had protocols and procedures to safeguard patients from abuse, these were not sufficient to keep patients safe. At this inspection we saw that comprehensive, effective safeguarding procedures had been introduced. These procedures had been agreed with the local safeguarding team.
  • Our previous inspection in November 2016 identified that not all staff who were acting as chaperones had been trained or risk assessed for the role. At this inspection, we saw that only staff who had been trained and risk assessed to work as chaperones were acting in this capacity.
  • At our previous inspection we saw that there had been no infection prevention and control (IPC) audit carried out for the practice and we recommended that the IPC lead receive training for the role. We saw at this inspection that a comprehensive IPC audit had been carried out and an action plan had been documented which was being addressed. Other spot-check audits were also ongoing. We saw that the IPC lead was booked to attend training to further support the role.
  • In November 2016, we found that patient vaccines and samples were sometimes being stored in the same fridge in reception and that the temperature of this fridge was not always monitored daily. At this inspection, we saw that this was no longer the case; temperatures were checked and recorded every working day and staff told us how they separated vaccines and patient samples in different fridges.
  • At our last inspection, we found that the oxygen cylinder that was with the emergency medicines and equipment was out of date. At this inspection, we saw evidence of a log of checks on the oxygen cylinders in the practice that included a record of the expiry dates for both the oxygen cylinders and the adult and children’s masks for use with the oxygen.
  • In November 2016, we found that there was a lack of risk assessment for assessing, monitoring and mitigating risks relating to the health and safety of service users and staff. At this inspection, the practice showed us comprehensive risk assessments for the premises which identified actions which had been addressed or were planned for completion.
  • Our previous inspection identified that blank prescriptions were left in printers in the practice when non-practice staff were using the rooms. We found at this inspection that a new procedure had been introduced to lock these prescriptions away securely when practice staff finished their work.
  • In November 2016 we saw that not all practice clinical audits were well-documented and there was evidence of discrepancies in reported results. We recommended that audit documentation was improved for all audits. We were shown two completed audits carried out since our last inspection that were well-documented.
  • During our inspection in November 2016, we recommended a review of the Patient Specific Direction (PSD) for staff administering vitamin B12 so that all information was accurately recorded. We found at this inspection that the practice had produced a new pathway for this PSD and amended the template on the computerised patient record to ensure that all information was accurately documented and the correct protocol followed.
  • In November 2016, we recommended that the practice review procedures for identifying patients who were also carers. At this inspection, we saw that this process had improved. A member of reception staff was acting as a carers champion, there was a new policy and carers registration form in place, clinical staff had been reminded of the criteria for recognising a patient as a carer and the number of carers identified had increased from 0.8% of the practice list to 0.9%. This work was ongoing.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

21 November 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Worden Medical Centre on 21 November 2016. Overall the practice is rated as requires Improvement.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events. Significant events were shared with all staff.
  • The practice had protocols and procedures to safeguard patients from abuse however these were not sufficient to keep patients safe.
  • Not all risks to patients and staff had been assessed and well managed. Staff were acting as chaperones without training or being risk-assessed for the role. There was a lack of risk assessment for infection prevention and control and for the workplace. One of the fridge records showed that daily temperatures had not been recorded on several occasions and patient samples and vaccines were kept in the same fridge.
  • The management of prescriptions was good although the practice had not considered the risk of loose prescriptions in printers that were accessible to non-practice staff.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There were shortfalls in practice governance processes and procedures. Some policies were not being followed or were insufficient and there was a lack of risk assessment in some areas.
  • The practice had won a Quality Teaching Practice Gold award in 2016 for training students from Manchester University and a Bronze award in 2015. We saw evidence of positive feedback from students who had trained at the practice.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • Ensure that there are comprehensive processes and procedures in place to protect patients from abuse; address the risks identified by the practice safeguarding risk assessment tool and ensure thorough management and documenting of all safeguarding concerns.
  • Ensure that all staff acting as chaperones are risk assessed for the role.
  • Carry out a comprehensive practice infection prevention and control audit.
  • Maintain records of temperature recordings for all fridges every working day and separate the storage of patient samples and vaccines.
  • Establish processes and procedures to ensure comprehensive governance is established in order to assess, monitor and mitigate the risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of service users.
  • Ensure that the security of prescriptions fully reflects the NHS security of prescription forms guidance.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Provide health and safety risk assessments for staff working at the practice and the practice environment.
  • Support the comprehensive documentation of audit activity.
  • Implement processes to improve the identification of carers in the practice population.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

9 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people who used the service (patients) and they all provided us with very positive feedback. All the patients told us they felt safe when receiving care and support and staff were friendly and caring. They all stated that the service they received was of a high standard. One patient told us, "I've never had a problem, I think the GP's are fantastic here". Another patient told us, "I'm always happy that everything is explained to me fully whether I'm seeing either the doctor or nurse".

The practice had up to date child and adult protection policies and procedures in place. This information included contact details for staff to raise concerns with the appropriate agencies.

Staff told us they felt supported and were able to raise issues with peers or management. There was evidence staff training took place on a regular basis.

During our visit we found the practice had systems to assess and monitor quality. This included regular audits, staff meetings and patient satisfaction surveys. A complaints process and suggestions box were also available for people should they wish to raise any issues.