- GP practice
Oakmeadow Surgery - RA Leach
Assessment report published 29 May 2025
Contents
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
Safe
The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes. Whilst we found a backlog of un-summarised patient records, the provider was responsive and provided an action plan addressing the concerns.
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 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.
Learning culture
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. Managers encouraged staff to raise concerns when things went wrong. During staff meetings, the whole team discussed and learnt from clinical issues, there was opportunities in these meetings for staff to discuss individual learning and experiences to empower colleagues and present further opportunities to develop as a team. 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.
Safe systems, pathways and transitions
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 number of medical notes to be summarised without consideration of potential risk. The provider was responsive to our findings and provided an action plan with insight into the backlog and a completion date to which all notes would be summarised.
Safeguarding
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, and we found evidence of actions taken.
Involving people to manage risks
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.
Safe environments
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 and formed part of ongoing development of the premises and were taken into consideration for future development. There was a business continuity plan in place which was monitored and reviewed.
Safe and effective staffing
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. Safe recruitment practices were followed. We found that the practice had an effective system of supervision evidencing discussions and learning outcomes to ensure safe practice and development of staff. Staff told us that there was an open door policy and we found evidence of clinical support in medical records.
Infection prevention and control
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 practice had further support from the infection lead from the Integrated Care Borad who conducted a risk assessment to ensure all areas were covered.
Medicines optimisation
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. Prescribing data reviewed as part of our assessment confirmed this. For example, the number of antimicrobials issued by the provider was lower than local and national averages. There was a programme of regular clinical audits of prescribing that focused on improving care and treatment.