Parkside 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 there was a culture of openness in which there was a willingness to identify and learn from safety events. We looked for evidence people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last inspection we rated this key question Requires Improvement.
At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

This is because:

• The service acted in ways that helped keep patients safe and protected from avoidable harm, abuse or neglect.

• Staff had the required skills, knowledge, competency and authorisation to deliver the care and treatment they did.

• The provider made sure medicines were used safely and stored effectively.

• Staff were trained in identifying and responding to medical emergencies, and had access to suitable equipment and medicines for use in an emergency.

• The practice identified and managed or addressed risks in the care environment, including those relating to the prevention or control of the spread of infection.

• There was a system for recording incidents, near misses, complaints, and significant and learning events and the practice investigated these.

• The practice processed information coming into the practice and leaving the practice appropriately and in a timely way. However, systems to identify and monitor delayed referrals, including urgent referrals such as those for possible cancers, could be strengthened.
 

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.

There was a system for reporting and recording incidents, near misses, complaints, and significant and learning events.

Staff told us they knew how to, and felt comfortable to, report concerns, safety incidents and near misses to leaders.

In the year leading up to this assessment, the practice had recorded 6 learning or significant events. Three of these arose from complaints received by the practice.

Complaints, incidents, and learning and significant events were investigated.

Complaints, incidents, and learning and significant events were discussed in practice meetings, held every 3 months, and in clinical meetings, also held every 3 months. Although not all practice staff were invited to or attended these meetings, all staff could access notes from the meetings, which were available on the practice's computer system.

Leaders understood how and when to report incidents externally, such as notifiable diseases and CQC notifications.
 

There were systems for sharing information with staff and other agencies to enable them to deliver safe care and treatment. For example, staff from care homes supported by the practice told us the process for registering new patients was straight-forward and efficient, and that the practice generally registered new patients without delays. Care home staff felt the practice had effective systems for processing information relating to new patients, so practice staff were aware of people's medical history and care needs.

The practice processed letters, test results and prescription requests coming into the practice in a timely and effective way.

All test results coming into the practice were reviewed by a clinician.

The practice processed referrals to other services in a timely way.

The practice had systems for tracking the progress of referrals once they had been received by the service the patient had been referred to. However, the practice did not show there was an effective system to identify any referrals that may have been ‘lost’ before being received by the other service, particularly for urgent referrals such as those for possible cancers.
 

The practice maintained an up-to-date Safeguarding Policy.

Staff knew who had the lead role for safeguarding within the practice and knew how to report any concerns.

The practice used recognised standardised icons on the clinical records system to identify people who may be at risk of abuse or neglect. These included other family members or people living in the household.

The practice kept up-to-date registers of their most vulnerable patients.

Children and adults on these registers were discussed in multi-disciplinary meetings held every 3 months. Practice staff and staff from other services, including health visitors, palliative care nurses, district nurses and the Integrated Care and Support Team, contributed to these meetings and any agreed actions.

Practice staff also discussed concerns with other services on an individual basis when needed, such as with mental health teams, and made sure other services, such as midwives, were aware of patients when appropriate.

The practice considered risks for people who were identified as being more vulnerable because of their circumstances when they moved out of the area.

Training records showed all clinical and non-clinical staff had completed up-to-date training in safeguarding children, safeguarding adults, and in preventing radicalisation, relevant to their role.
 

The practice had risk assessed which emergency medicines to have available in the practice, and kept recommended medicines and equipment for use in an emergency.

These were accessible, portable and held securely. There was an effective system for practice staff to see easily if the medicines or equipment had been tampered with, for example an item used or removed, which included a daily check.

There was an effective system in place to make sure emergency medicines and equipment were in date and replaced when they were nearing their expiry. The emergency medicines and equipment available at the time of this site visit were in date.

The practice also carried out monthly checks to help make sure the equipment used to monitor a person in the event of an emergency was available and working, such as having enough battery.

There was a system to make sure Adrenaline was available in rooms where vaccinations were given. This is recommended so the medicine can be given quickly if a person has a serious and potentially life-threatening anaphylactic reaction to a vaccine.

Training records showed all clinical and non-clinical staff had completed up-to-date training in basic life support and all staff had completed training in Sepsis Awareness. Sepsis, sometimes called blood poisoning, happens when your body overreacts to an infection and starts to damage itself. Symptoms can be difficult to spot, and sepsis can be life-threatening. Therefore, it is important that staff can recognise and act on symptoms.

Staff described how they would seek help if they felt a patient appeared acutely unwell, seemed to be deteriorating or if they were concerned. A duty doctor sat in the reception area during the day and was available to support staff with clinical queries and concerns.

There was a noticeboard at the entrance to the practice displaying information about sepsis and the importance of awareness. There were also posters and leaflets about sepsis in the waiting area. Practice leaders told us the noticeboard had been created with input from a patient who had survived sepsis.
 

The service was aware of potential risks in the care environment and took steps to control them.
A practice leader was a designated Health and Safety Officer and had completed a recognised course in 'managing safely'.
The practice also worked with an external company to carry out health and safety risk assessments, to identify and address any risks in the care environment and to maintain the premises. The most recent Health and Safety Audit had been carried out in May 2025.
A Fire Risk Assessment had been completed by an external company in January 2026. The practice had acted on recommendations in it.

The practice had recorded weekly tests of the fire alarm system. There were fire extinguishers throughout the building, which had been regularly serviced. Emergency exit routes were clearly signed and were not obstructed. Staff were aware of the emergency evacuation procedure and where they should assemble.

Training records showed all clinical and non-clinical staff had completed up-to-date training in fire safety.

The practice carried out fire drills and identified learning from them. Leaders considered the timing of fire drills, for example after new staff had joined the practice, and tested the practice's response to certain scenarios, to maximise the learning from fire drills.

Practice leaders also told us they carried out 'emergency drills' to test the practice's response to situations such as medical emergencies or staff requesting urgent assistance. However, these were not documented.

Electrical equipment had most recently been tested for safety in December 2025.

Medical equipment had most recently been calibrated in December 2025. Calibration is important to ensure the equipment provides correct and accurate readings to make sure patients received appropriate care and treatment.

The practice had taken steps to control exposure to materials in the workplace that can cause ill-health or injury, in line with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations. For example, the practice kept information about chemicals, such as specific cleaning products kept and used at the practice, to provide guidance about how to store the product safely or what to do if there was a spillage.

The practice maintained an up-to-date Emergency/Business Continuity Plan, most recently reviewed in May 2026. This outlined what staff should consider and what actions to take if there was a major incident or disruption to the service, such as a loss of medical records, computer or telephone systems, or other utilities such as gas, electricity and water; staffing shortages; or supply issues. The plan was specific to the practice and contained relevant contact details for a variety of situations.

 

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development, including yearly appraisals.

The practice supported staffs' professional development.

Staff had the qualifications and training needed for their roles and had stayed up-to-date and competent to do the tasks they did in the practice. These included staff who assessed and treated minor illnesses; were involved in supporting patients to manage long-term conditions such as diabetes, asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD); and staff who carried out cervical screening or administered vaccinations.

Staff worked within agreed areas of competence, including staff who were non-medical prescribers. A non-medical prescriber is a registered healthcare professional who has completed training to be able to prescribe medicines without needing to ask a doctor.

Leaders carried out audits of clinical consultations and prescribing practices for staff, which showed staffs' competency.

The practice followed safe recruitment practices. Recruitment checks help to protect people and systems by making sure people are suitable for the roles they are employed to do.

Staff told us they felt there were enough clinical and non-clinical staff to provide safe, high-quality care. However, some clinical staff also told us that meeting demand could be a challenge. The provider had responded to staffing challenges, and, at the time of this assessment, there were significant staffing changes within the nursing team.

There were arrangements in place to cover expected and unexpected staff absences.
 

Staff knew who had the lead role for infection prevention and control (IPC) in the practice.

The IPC lead had carried out an overall audit of IPC in the practice in May 2026. The practice had a plan to reduce or manage risks identified, and some actions had already been completed.

The practice also carried out yearly handwashing audits and audits of the bins used for the disposal of sharps, such as needles and injections. Practice staff also carried out a weekly check of a random clinical room, which included checking staff were following cleaning schedules effectively.

There was effective communication between practice staff and cleaning staff.

Staff were aware of an appropriate procedure to follow in the event of a needlestick injury.

Training records showed clinical and non-clinical staff had completed up-to-date training in IPC relevant to their roles.

Clinical waste was stored and managed safely.

Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE), for example gloves and aprons, hand soap and paper towels.

A Legionella Risk Assessment Review had been completed by an external company in March 2025. Practice leaders told us the works recommended in the review had been carried out. The provider shared with us documents showing the external company visited the practice monthly to carry out the recommended checks and maintenance.

The provider was not aware of all staffs’ immunity status against various infectious diseases, in line with guidance from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA). Practice leaders told us they were aware of some of the gaps and how they planned to identify and reduce or manage any risks, to help protect staff, patients, visitors, and the public from harm from the spread of infection.

 

The practice kept blank prescription stationery securely and had systems to help reduce the risks associated with their potential misuse.

Staff administering medicines had the appropriate authorisation to do so. This included via the use of Patient Specific Directions (PSDs) and Patient Group Directions (PGDs). These are legal frameworks that allow healthcare workers to administer a certain medicine to a specific patient or groups of patients without the need for an appropriate clinician to issue individual prescriptions.

The practice kept medicines appropriately, including medicines such as vaccines that need to be stored in a fridge, to make sure they remain safe and effective to use. Practice staff monitored the temperatures of fridges in line with guidance from the UKHSA and knew how to respond appropriately if the temperatures recorded were outside the acceptable range.

Both of the fridges used to store medicines also had a second thermometer and data loggers. The main fridge had 2 data loggers to improve reliability. Practice staff downloaded information from the data loggers every month. Staff also reviewed the data when manual temperature readings were outside the acceptable range, to establish if storage of medicines had been maintained in line with the manufacturer's instructions, or to help inform the actions needed to help make sure people received medicines that worked effectively and reduce the risk of avoidable harm.

The practice usually monitored the health of patients prescribed medicines where monitoring is required because of the risks associated with taking the medicine.

The practice had a system for recording and acting on safety alerts received into the practice, such as those from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).