Consett 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 requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

This service scored 75 (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 demonstrated a proactive and open culture of safety, supported by clear policies including Duty of Candour, Whistleblowing, and Freedom to Speak Up.

Staff reported feeling confident to raise concerns through various channels such as line management, formal reporting systems, and an open-door approach. The practice had established procedures for reporting and investigating incidents, near misses, safety events and patient complaints.

Learning was shared across the organisation through 1-to-1 feedback, team meetings, internal emails, multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, peer supervision, and clinical reviews. Managers monitored outcomes using action trackers and audits to ensure changes were embedded in practice.

For example, a recent prescribing oversight involving anticoagulation was used as a learning opportunity. The patient’s treatment was promptly reviewed and amended, and the case was discussed within the team to reinforce safe prescribing practice. Complaints and incidents were also reviewed regularly to identify themes and inform service improvements. In response to patient feedback about high call volumes in the mornings, the practice introduced a Total Triage model, which is currently being rolled out and is expected to be fully operational by September 2025.

The service had effective systems in place to ensure patients experienced safe and timely care transitions. A shared electronic clinical record system was used across the practice, enabling seamless information sharing when patients moved between services. Where shared systems were not in place, appropriate information-sharing agreements were established. The practice held regular multidisciplinary (MDT) meetings and worked collaboratively with other healthcare professionals to coordinate care, particularly for high-risk or complex patients. Staff in roles such as care coordinators and social prescribing link workers contributed to continuity of care and supported safe handovers.

Urgent and routine referrals, including 2-week-wait cancer referrals, were tracked electronically and overseen by the management team to ensure timely follow-up. Test results were reviewed daily by clinicians, with appropriate action taken when needed. Prescriptions were issued within 48 working hours, and urgent medication requests were handled the same day. Weekly audits and task monitoring supported ongoing safety and accountability across the team.

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.

The service had clear safeguarding systems in place to protect people from abuse and neglect. Named safeguarding leads were in post, with all staff receiving appropriate training relevant to their role. Line managers and the compliance administrator monitored training completion through a central tracker. Staff received training to recognise and escalate safeguarding concerns, and policies were in place to guide appropriate action.

Regular safeguarding meetings were held, including monthly meetings for children and bi-monthly for adults, with additional discussions incorporated into multidisciplinary or clinical meetings when needed. The practice maintained safeguarding registers to support oversight.

The practice had a chaperone policy in place, ensuring that chaperones were available to provide comfort and to help mitigate risk for both patients and staff.

The practice carried out Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks when required.

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.

The practice trained staff to recognise and respond to acutely unwell or deteriorating patients, and systems were in place to support timely triage and escalation. All staff received annual training in CPR and basic life support, and non-clinical staff received sepsis awareness training delivered by GP registrars to support early identification of risk.

Staff ensured that emergency medicines and equipment were available, in date, and regularly checked. A central training tracker was used to monitor staff compliance with mandatory emergency training.

Staff had direct access to a duty doctor for support during triage and had completed additional training, including distress brief intervention, to help respond effectively to patients’ emotional and clinical needs. Supervision arrangements were clearly defined: one Duty Doctor oversaw all Nurses and Advanced Nurse Practitioners (ANPs), while the other supervised all GP Registrars. The practice also maintained various patient registers, including for vulnerable adults and people with learning disabilities, which were used to inform care planning and support ongoing risk management.

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. The practice carried out health and safety risk assessments and audits and addressed any identified risks. There was a business continuity plan in place which was monitored and reviewed.

Fire drills were conducted twice per year, and designated fire marshals were in place.

The premises were accessible, with clinics located on the ground floor, stairlift access, and wheelchair availability. However, the disabled access button on the main door was not functioning at the time of the visit. The Practice Manager confirmed that they were aware of the issue and that it was being addressed.

The environment was secured with CCTV, coded access, secure storage, visitor sign-in protocols, and confidential waste disposal arrangements. The service followed data protection policies, undertook audits of data handling, and completed the NHS Data Security and Protection Toolkit annually.

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.

Regular supervision was provided through formal 1-to-1 meetings held 3 to 4 times per year. Clinical competence was assessed through consultation audits, peer supervision, and the review of significant events, with learning shared both individually and in team meetings. Annual appraisals included a review of training needs and personal development plans.

The practice had made reasonable adjustments to support staff in carrying out their roles safely and effectively. This included the provision of ergonomically friendly equipment and access to assistive programmes to support staff with dyslexia.

Staff development was actively encouraged through mentorship, shadowing, internal and external training, and role reviews. For example, a Clinical Pharmacist was undertaking the Advanced Clinical Practitioner (ACP) programme through a fully funded 3-year apprenticeship, supported by GP mentorship. A Diabetic Nurse was also completing a prescribing qualification.

Non-medical prescribing was monitored through clinical audits and daily supervision by duty doctors.

There was a clear structure of clinical and non-clinical roles, with appropriate training in place. Staff were working within their defined scopes of competence, and learning needs were appropriately monitored. The practice followed safe recruitment practices.

Following the site visit, we received information raising some concerns about the working culture in the service. We shared this information with the provider so that they could look into the issues raised.

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 carried out regular audits, with monthly time allocated to infection control monitoring. There was a designated infection prevention and control (IPC) lead, and all staff had received relevant training. Actions identified from audits were monitored and addressed in a timely way; for example, the practice recently replaced clinical waste bins across all rooms, and a treatment couch with a split was also repaired as part of the audit findings. Cleaning schedules were in place and followed. The practice completed risk assessments and audits and took appropriate actions to mitigate risks.

The practice worked with an NHS occupational health service to ensure all staff had the necessary vaccinations before starting work. Once completed, their vaccination status was confirmed and securely recorded.

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 made significant improvements in medicines optimisation since the last assessment, particularly in the monitoring and safety of high-risk medicines. A clinical review showed clear progress in the appropriate use and monitoring of anticoagulants. Although our clinical searches initially raised some concerns about the monitoring of patients prescribed direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)—particularly those requiring more frequent review due to impaired renal function—and the implementation of MHRA safety alerts related to teratogenic medicines, our review of clinical notes during the assessment provided assurance that robust follow-up, documentation, and monitoring processes were in place.

The practice had effective systems for managing safety alerts and medicine recalls, and patients prescribed high-risk medicines received appropriate monitoring.

Staff involved patients in medicine reviews and supported them in managing their medicines safely. Patients knew how to seek help if their condition changed or if they experienced side effects.

Staff were confident in managing medicines safely, including storage, administration, and documentation. Medicines, including vaccines and emergency drugs, were regularly checked for stock levels and expiry dates. Medical gases were stored safely.

Staff had appropriate authorisations under Patient Group Directions (PGDs), although 1 PGD was signed after the authorising clinician. This is not in line with best practice, as it may affect the clarity of when authorisation and competency confirmation took place. Non-medical prescribers had their prescribing practices regularly reviewed to ensure safety and adherence to guidance.

One of the GPs and the Clinical Pharmacist had completed a course in Multimorbidity and Polypharmacy, further strengthening the practice’s clinical leadership and expertise in managing complex prescribing.

The practice promoted appropriate antimicrobial use. Prescribing data showed lower-than-average prescribing of antibiotics for uncomplicated urinary tract infections, supporting good antimicrobial stewardship. Prescribing of hypnotics and broad-spectrum antibiotics was in line with national benchmarks, suggesting adherence to safe prescribing practices.