Coleridge 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 in April 2023, we rated this key question as Good.

At this assessment, the rating remains unchanged. This key question remains rated as 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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

At our last assessment in April 2023, we found breaches of Regulation 12 because the service had over a year backlog in summarising patient records (summarising is the process of looking at patients records and extracting an accurate medical history in chronological order).

During this assessment, improvements had been made. Backlogs had been cleared and dedicated staff had been appointed the role of notes summarisation. They followed an established procedure and process for summarising patient records, which was effective.

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.

There were systems for processing information relating to new patients. The service worked with other providers to deliver shared care and when patients moved between services.

At our last assessment in April 2023, we found breaches of Regulation 12 - safe care and treatment.

During this assessment, evidence showed that staff were now appropriately trained in safeguarding procedures and to the level appropriate to their role.

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.

There were safeguarding policies known to staff. The service maintained a list of vulnerable people and acted on concerns working in partnership with other organisations.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

At our last assessment in April 2023, we observed washable carpet tiles in clinical areas which we told the provider they should consider updating.

During this assessment, we saw that carpets had been replaced with smooth,

non-porous, hard, and seamlessflooring; as set out by the NHS England:National Infection Prevention and Control Manual (NIPCM).

The service had a designated infection, prevention and control lead and all staff had had relevant training. Risk assessments and audits were completed.

At our last assessment in April 2023, we told the provider they should consider MHRA alerts being actioned in a timely manner and ensure a consistent quality of medication reviews. (MHRA: Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which is an executive agency in the UK responsible for regulating the safety, quality, and efficacy of medicines, medical devices, and blood products in the UK).

During this assessment, the provider had effective systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls. Improvements had been made to the system and process, for ensuring that alerts received were disseminating and acted on. Documented evidence showed actions taken were clearly recorded; people’s clinical records were reviewed and where appropriate, they were contacted to discuss the reason for any changes in medicines required.

There was a programme of regular clinical audits of prescribing that focused on improving care and treatment.

Staff followed established processes to ensure people prescribed medicines with specific risks, received recommended monitoring.