Gatley Group Practice

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 staff protected people from avoidable harm and made sure care was delivered from environments that were clean and well maintained. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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

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.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The service had contracts to ensure the premises was maintained. Staff and leaders completed health and safety risk assessments and undertook audits to ensure they had identified and addressed all risks.

The service had a business continuity plan which was regularly reviewed and outlined how the service should continue to operate in the event of a disruption.

All non-clinical areas were clean, tidy and free from clutter. The waiting room was warm, appropriately furnished and seating was in good repair with wipeable surfaces.

Fire extinguishers were available and within date and had undergone sufficient checks. There was good signage around the building telling people where to go and what to do in the event of a fire. There were fire doors in the building which had the correct signage on.

The service made sure there were always enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff employed by the practice. There were good contingencies in place to support short notice leave and sickness. Staff received support, supervision and development opportunities. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. There were regular documented minutes of meetings and there was a clear visible working relationship between clinical and non-clinical staff.

The service had a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included GP, Advance Nurse Practitioner and Health Care Assistants. Training was up to date, learning needs and development of staff was managed appropriately, and staff were working within their agreed areas of competence.

The service followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, which was in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining of professional references and a criminal records check.

Staff told us that they felt supported within the workplace and that opportunities for learning were available to them to ensure they worked in the best interests of all service users.

Gatley Medical Practice had policies and procedures for staff to follow and regular training to keep staff abreast of best practice.

Gatley Medical Practice 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, including handwashing audits were completed, and actions taken to mitigate risks.

The clinical rooms were of a good clean standard. Handwashing facilities were appropriate with good levels of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), hand towels and liquid soaps available for use. The privacy curtains were all in date and in good repair.

Appropriate levels of liquid soap and hand towels were available in the public and staff toilet facilities.

We witnessed clinical staff were bare below the elbow whilst on duty which promoted effective hand hygiene.

The service did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They did not always involve people in planning or ensure that people receive evidence-based, clinically effective and safe prescribing.

Emergency medicines, medical gases and vaccines were stored correctly and in line with best practice. Our review of clinical records, prescribing data and medicines governance processes did not always provide assurance that medicines were managed effectively. Staff received regular training and competency assessments in medicines optimisation. People were not always actively involved in decisions about their medicines through regular reviews and they did not always receive information to help them understand how to manage their medicines safely. Clinical searches undertaken by a CQC clinician showed that people did not always receive appropriate monitoring in line with national guidance. Although safety alerts were being monitored the system that was in place to do so was not always effective. Systems in place to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls were not in line with best practice. Immediately after receiving feedback on the concerns being raised the provider put an action plan in place to address the concerns.

Prescribing data reviewed as part of our assessment demonstrated appropriate antimicrobial stewardship, as the number of antimicrobials issued by the provider was lower than local and national averages. The provider had a programme of regular clinical prescribing audits that focused on improving care and treatment.