Cambridge 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 requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. The service was no longer in breach of legal regulations in relation to the safety of the premises.

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.

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. We saw that complaints were managed in line with practice policy. Actions that arose because of complaints were clearly documented, assigned to the appropriate staff, and marked as complete when actions had been completed. There was a system to record and investigate complaints, and when things went wrong, staff apologised and gave people support.

The provider had processes for staff to report incidents, near misses and safety events. Learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes that improved care for others. For example, the practice leadership had changed the location of accessible parking bays within the carpark because of patient feedback. Staff told us that leaders were visible and concerns could be raised if needed.

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 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 National GP Patient Survey 2025 data showed that 50% of respondents usually got to see or speak to their preferred healthcare professional when they wanted to. This was higher than the national average of 40%.

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. Safeguarding training had been completed by staff, and this training was recorded by the practice leadership. 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. 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 National GP Patient Survey 2025 data showed that 93% of respondents were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last GP appointment. This was higher than the national average of 91%.

Since our last assessment, the practice had introduced new TV screens displaying information related to Pharmacy First services. The practice leadership had investigated barriers to people aged 25 – 30 attending for cervical screening by contacting patients. After contacting 82 patients who had not attended for cervical screening, 40 had then made appointment for screening following a telephone call. Staff also identified 20 patients who were not appropriate to be on the list for cervical screening who could be removed.

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.

Since our last assessment, the practice had been refurbished. We saw that a new legionella risk assessment had been undertaken. Portable appliance testing had been conducted for all appliances, as well as equipment calibration. Since our last assessment, health and safety had been added as a standard agenda item in practice meetings, with meaningful discussions documented by the health and safety lead.

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.

Safe recruitment practices were not always followed in relation to the collection of staff immunisation information. The practice leadership had not obtained information related to staff immunisations. Following our assessment, the practice leadership gathered this information for all current staff and updated their recruitment policy to include staff immunisations as part of their recruitment process. DBS checks and working references were collected and stored appropriately.

There were a range of clinical and non-clinical roles within the practice. This included 5 GPs, 2 Nurse Practitioners, 2 Practice Nurses, 1 Advanced Care Practitioner, and 2 Health Care Assistants. We found training was up to date, the learning needs and development of staff was managed appropriately, and staff were working within their agreed areas of competence. Training logs were kept up to date by the practice leadership, who had a clear understanding of what learning had been completed by staff. Staff were supported to attend training courses and participate in specialist groups.

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. Infection prevention and control risk assessments and audits were completed, and actions taken to mitigate any risks. Since our last assessment, infection, prevention and control had been added as a standard agenda item in practice meetings. We saw that any concerns were discussed within these meetings.

The service did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

We saw that required monitoring such as blood pressure and weight was not always done for patients who were prescribed a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARDs). The practice leadership were made aware of this at the time of the inspection. The practice has since contacted the patients impacted by this and has implemented a monthly search to prevent this from happening in the future. The effectiveness of this will be assessed at a future inspection. Through our clinical searches, we found that the required monitoring was also not always done for other prescribed medicines such as mirabegron. The practice has since contacted the impacted patients and offered them a GP appointment.

Staff regularly checked the stock levels and expiry dates for all medicines, including emergency medicines. Quantities of emergency medicines were recorded in 2 places. We saw that these 2 lists did not match and were therefore not always reflective of the contents of the emergency kit. The practice leadership were informed of this on the day of inspection and took immediate action to correct the lists.

The provider had effective systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls.