Honeypot 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 78 (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 strong proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and complete honesty. They actively listened to concerns about safety and thoroughly investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were always 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. During practice meetings, staff discussed and learnt from clinical and non-clinical issues.

There was a system to record and investigate complaints, and when things went wrong, staff apologised and gave people support. The service had carried out a Thematic Summary Report of Significant Events for the previous year where they analysed themes, identified recurring patterns, highlighted areas of risk to support quality improvement across the practice.

The Practice also ran a Digital Enablement Drop-in Session three times a week where patients could get help, for example, in understanding how to use digital services to book appointments or see their test results. Results show that in the previous year, there was an increase in 11% of the number of registered users for the NHS App. We also saw evidence of the number of patients being onboarded onto the NHS App during the Digital Sessions. Between April 2025 and April 2026, 266 patients were onboarded with the help of staff (digital champions) from the practice. We also saw evidence that since 2024, there was an increase in usage and confidence in the NHS App since the practice started the Digital Enablement Drop-in sessions.

 

The service always worked with people and healthcare partners to design, establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was always well managed and monitored. They made sure there was always 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 practice identified the top 2% of patients who would benefit from enhanced continuity of care and identified 3 team members to be part of a named team. This included patients with long-term conditions, Frailty, Frequent hospital admissions, Complex care needs and Significant social or safeguarding needs. As of April 2026, 360 patients were identified. 100% of these patients had medication reviews in the last 12 months and post discharge follow-ups where appropriate. Data we saw of patients, on the continuity of care register, which analysed Emergency Department Attendances shows a theme of less patients attending AE after the named care team was put in place. For example, 30 high risk patients AE attendances from 2025/2026 data in comparison with 58 high risk patients AE attendances from 2024/2025.

The practice carried out a Quality improvement report on their ‘two-week wait’ cancer referrals which resulted in changing the approach for their two-week wait referrals process. This change resulted in the practice having a system that tracked every two-week wait referral from generation to conclusion and identified any breakdown in the pathway.
 

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 all appropriately trained in safeguarding procedures. All staff had appropriate level of safeguarding training.

The practice maintained a register of vulnerable adults, children and household members on their medical records. All patients had the appropriate codes on the practice database.
 

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 and medicines were all available and well maintained. All staff we spoke with during the assessment were aware of sepsis and the symptoms to look out for, could recognise a deteriorating patient, and knew of action to take.

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. Premises 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. We found training was up to date for all 5 staff members we looked at during the site-visit. Learning needs and development of staff was managed appropriately, and staff were working within their agreed areas of competence. Safe recruitment practices were followed. Leaders and management monitored for any gaps in skills and encouraged staff and arranged for additional training. The service had structured appraisal system.

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 relevant training. All staff we spoke with during the assessment knew what to do in events of spillages and the procedures to follow. Cleaning schedules were in place and followed. Risk assessments and audits were completed, and actions were 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. The practice had medical oxygen and a defibrillator for use in a medical emergency. Staff received regular training, were competency assessed on medicines optimisation, and felt confident managing the storage, administration and recording of medicines. Medicines were stored securely and at appropriate temperatures. Staff regularly checked the stock levels and expiry dates for all medicines, including emergency medicines and vaccines. Staff managed prescription stationery appropriately and securely. The practice had effective systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls. Staff took steps to ensure they prescribed medicines appropriately to optimise care outcomes.

The practice had a list of clinical audits which they would carry out every 3 months or every 6 months. The provider had recently audited anti-thyroid medicine prescribing as well as auditing anticoagulant medicine prescribing. Anticoagulant medication is used to prevent and treat harmful blood clots.

Prescribing data we reviewed which showed the number of patients prescribed of medications used to treat nerve pain and seizures per 1,000 patients was significantly better than the England average. Our searches showed an observation of 68% and the national average was 137%. The number of patients prescribed psychotropic medicines showed the number was better than the national average. We observed 4% and the national average was 7%.