Westside Medical Centre Also known as Westside 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 69 (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) met with the practice quarterly and had a section in the waiting room to provide updates for the practice population.

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.

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 provider had an effective system in place to ensure that all pathology results are actioned within 24 hours.

However, we found a large number of medical notes waiting to be summarised. The provider was responsive to our findings and evidenced remaining notes were stored appropriately in alphabetical order to ensure ease of access should they need them, they also produced a risk assessment and timeline to show when remained notes would be summarised.

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. Alerts were visible on the clinical system so staff could manage patients appropriately, safeguarding meetings were conducted regularly with the community nursing team, and we found evidence of actions taken.

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 practice had developed a triage sheet to support reception staff to navigate patients effectively to the right clinician or emergency services.

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. During the inspection we found no concerns regarding fire safety a previous audit showed no concerns identified and the provider had an upcoming fire risk assessment scheduled.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. 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 most training was up to date, learning needs and development of staff was managed appropriately, and staff were working within their agreed areas of competence. Safe recruitment practices for new employees were followed but some staff files for long serving staff members were missing documentation.

On inspection we found an inconsistency around record keeping of staff files, this included training and recruitment documents. The practice presented documents in paper form and electronically, but they were not always readily available to the inspector. The practice was responsive to findings and were given assurance that they had all the appropriate documentation and had reviewed and amended their process to ensure effective oversight for the future.

Staff members were able to discuss clinical cases in meetings, and the practice fostered an open culture for learning. Clinical searches conducted by our GP specialist advisor found effective clinical practice. However, we found the practice did not effectively audit non-medical prescribers. The practice acknowledged these shortfalls and developed a policy and template to effectively audit this in the future.

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. Risk assessments and audits were completed, and actions taken to mitigate risks. The provider had employed external cleaners, and we found the practice to be visibly clean and actions from audits addressed the provider had cleaning schedules available for effective oversight.

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.

During our review of the clinical system, we found that 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. Staff regularly checked the stock levels and expiry dates for all medicines, including emergency medicines and vaccines. 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, through our clinical searches we found patients were consulted with regarding any potential risk from medications. Staff followed established processes to ensure people prescribed medicines with specific risks received recommended monitoring. Staff took steps to ensure they prescribed medicines appropriately to optimise care outcomes, including antibiotics.

As part of our assessment, remote clinical searches were conducted by a GP Specialist Advisor. Our clinical searches indicated that staff followed established processes to ensure people prescribed medicines with specific risks received the recommended monitoring. For example, our clinical searches found 53 patients prescribed Methotrexate which is a medicine commonly used to treat conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis. It requires regular monitoring because it can cause serious side effects. We reviewed five patient records and found all were appropriately monitored.