Newport Medical Group

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 has remained 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.

We found that the provider listened to concerns about safety and always investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice through the effective use of service audits.

People felt supported to raise concerns and felt staff treated them with compassion and understanding. A representative 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.

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 is multi site and each site operated a separate appointment system, however patients and managers confirmed that there was 1 patient list and patients could choose which surgery they wished to visit.

There were systems in place for processing information relating to new patients. 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 service did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that.

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 used a commercial telephone application to receive photographs of post circumcision site if parents had concerns. This reflected a lack of robust governance processes, as images could be stored on unsecured platforms and therefore at risk of inappropriate access or misuse. When this was highlighted, the provider was responsive and replaced this with a recognised, secure system.

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 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. The plan included joint working with other practices in the building in case of an emergency situation where the buildings or parts were unusable.

The service did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development. They did not always work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual

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.

However, we found that a receptionist was supporting the circumcision clinic with post operative checks on babies and children who had been circumcised. The staff member had not received training to complete this task. Following the assessment, the provider took action to implement training and supervision for the role.

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 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.

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.

Medicines including controlled drugs were stored securely and at appropriate temperatures. Staff regularly checked the stock levels and expiry dates for all medicines, including emergency medicines, vaccines, and controlled drugs. Waste medicines were recorded and disposed of appropriately including medicines returned by patients. 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.

Clinical pharmacists were employed who 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. We carried out remote searches of clinical records as part of our assessment to check how the practice monitored patients’ health in relation to the use of high-risk medicines.

We found that medication reviews were completed, people on high risk medicines received appropriate monitoring, and that prescribing was safe.

However, the clinical searches identified 245 people with hypothyroidism. Four of these patients had not had their Thyroid Function Tests (TFTs) completed within the last four months. We noted that the service had made multiple attempts to contact these patients and arrange monitoring, but despite these efforts, the patients did not attend. The service continued to engage with these patients to ensure they attended for their test.