Grovelands Medical Centre Also known as Dr D.A. Riley & 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

People were protected and kept safe. 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. However, we noted that recording of significant events and learning outcomes needed improvement.

This service scored 66 (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.

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. Systems for recording and monitoring significant events and complaints were in place; however, the records were not comprehensive. During interviews with staff, certain significant events were discussed that were not reflected in the practice logs. Staff were aware of the incident policy and had received training, but we noted that significant events needed to be identified, recorded and logged effectively.

We also noted gaps in the recording of learning outcomes, actions taken, and how this information had been shared with staff.

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 clear systems and processes in place to facilitate information sharing among external agencies, supporting the delivery of safe care. Regular safeguarding meetings were held to share information and ensure the protection of adults and children at risk of significant harm. 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. Staff shared examples of safety netting advice shared with patients about worsening or deteriorating symptoms.

There were systems in place for processing information relating to new patients. However, summarising information was not available for review at the time of the on-site visit but was provided subsequently. The practice undertook review and a physical count of the records stored on site and identified approximately 284 patient records requiring summarisation, representing around 2% of the registered patient population. The provider acknowledged the issue and was in the process of recruiting a new summariser to address the backlog of records requiring summarising.

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 practice held regular monthly and quarterly safeguarding meetings to discuss vulnerable patients and invited external partners and agencies to attend. This ensured information was shared and patients in the community were safeguarded and supported.

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. Emergency medicines were stored within the resuscitation trolley rather than in an easily portable emergency grab bag / tamper-evident bag. We noted that this arrangement may limit the ability to quickly access and transport the medicines to the point of need in an emergency.

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 patient survey results from 2025 indicated that 95% of the respondents felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment, in comparison to the national average of 91%.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

External contractors were used to complete risk assessments. We reviewed the systems to manage risks associated with fire, legionella and electrical safety and found these were effective and operating as the practice intended. 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. While on site we sampled the recruitment records for 5 members of staff, both clinical and non-clinical, and found all records contained the required information.

We also sampled the training compliance for 5 members of staff while on site and found all were up to date with the mandatory training required by the practice.

Staff throughout the practice had access to support and supervision as required. Non-medical prescribers had access to clinical leads and prescribed within scope of competence. However, we identified that supervision arrangement was not documented or formally recorded.

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 provider followed national guidance regarding staff immunisation status. They had systems and processes in place through a contracted external occupational health provider to ensure the immunisation status of staff working at the practice was assessed and monitored in line with provider’s policy.

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.

Our GP specialist adviser carried out remote searches of the practice's clinical system. These included searches for patients prescribed medicine which require ongoing monitoring and with long-term conditions. We found that overall medication monitoring was largely effective with appropriate recall systems in place for high risk medications, however some improvements were identified including missed diabetes follow up of small number of cases.

Staff received regular training, were competency assessed on medicines optimisation, and felt confident managing the storage, administration and recording of medicines.

Staff regularly checked the stock levels and expiry dates for all medicines, including emergency medicines, vaccines, and controlled drugs.

We noted the prescription stationery was not stored or monitored in line with recommended guidance. We were not assured that appropriate systems were in place to maintain oversight and prevent potential misuse, as records for tracking and logging prescription stationery were not always effective. The provider was responsive to the issues identified and was working to improve the governance and management of the prescription stationery.

Staff followed established processes to ensure people prescribed medicines with specific risks received the recommended monitoring. Prescribing data reviewed during the assessment showed the provider prescribed responsibly to optimise care outcomes, including antibiotics. For example, the number of antimicrobials prescribed was lower than the national averages.