The Gables Medicentre

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 assessed all quality statements in the safe key question.

We looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating has remained the same.

Staff were knowledgeable within their role. People were provided with support and information on their care and treatment. Medicines were generally managed well. However, not all of the recommended emergency medicines were available on site, and there was no documented risk assessment to provide a rationale for their absence. In addition, systems for the oversight and auditing of infection prevention and control were not sufficiently clear or robust.

This service scored 72 (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. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The practice engaged with Patient Participation Group (PPG), took patient concerns seriously and proactively made improvements to the service.

Complaints records showed that complaints received in the last 12 months had been acknowledged and acted on. There was a clear complaints process with learning from themes and trends.

Managers encouraged staff to raise concerns when things went wrong. During staff meetings, the team discussed and learnt from clinical issues.

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 provider had an effective system in place to ensure that all pathology results are actioned within 24 hours. Summarising of new patient records was up to date.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve it.

Safeguarding policies were in place and known to staff, who were appropriately trained in safeguarding procedures. There was a designated safeguarding lead, and staff were aware of who they were. Regular safeguarding multidisciplinary meetings were held to discuss safeguarding concerns. Safeguarding registers for both children and adults were maintained. There were digital flags on the system for any safeguarding concerns.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks. The service 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. We saw evidence that the process in place had been applied when a patient became unwell and had operated effectively in practice. Patients were advised on risks related to their condition and actions to take if their condition deteriorated. The practice had developed a triage sheet to support reception staff to navigate patients effectively to the right clinician or emergency services.

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 safely and appropriately. There was a business continuity plan in place which was monitored and reviewed. Health and safety risk assessments were in place and audited 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.

There were a range of clinical and non-clinical roles within the practice. We found training was up to date, learning needs and development of staff was managed appropriately, and staff were working within their agreed areas of competence. Safe recruitment practices were followed. The practice demonstrated effective arrangements for staff supervision. Supervision records evidenced regular discussions and identified learning outcomes, supporting safe practice and staff development.

However, we found that supervision of the Advanced Clinical Practitioner (ACP) was on an informal basis. Following our visit the practice advised they implemented more structured clinical supervision.

The service did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. There was no regular infection prevention and control audit, and we found a lack of clinical oversight of infection prevention and control (IPC). We saw there was an infection prevention audit in May 2026 relating to a minor surgery room for joint injections. The audit showed the room was compliant with the IPC requirements. However, we did not see an overarching IPC audit for either of the GP practice sites. The service employed cleaners to clean both sites, but oversight of this arrangement by managers had not been effective in ensuring the facilities were cleaned to a high standard.

We saw that a nurses’ clinical room was not clean and there was visible dirt on furniture. We saw the couch used in the room was ripped which was a risk of infection. The provider took immediate action to ensure this room was cleaned and had a plan to replace the ripped couch.

Following the inspection, leaders submitted evidence to show they had reviewed and strengthened IPC processes and systems. The practice’s Advanced Clinical Practitioner (ACP) nurse was appointed as the IPC lead. The lead role included overseeing daily and monthly clinical room checks, hand hygiene, management of fridge temperatures, overseeing the IPC policies and ensuring staff had completed IPC training. The practice clinical meetings now included oversight of IPC including equipment such as spill kits and sharps management, also staff immunisations. The service had started a full IPC audit of both sites on a four monthly basis. These actions indicated that the practice had taken steps to improve its IPC arrangements. However, it was too early to determine whether the changes had become fully embedded and consistently implemented across the service. Sustained oversight would be needed to ensure improvements result in long-term compliance and effective IPC practice.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs and preferences. We saw overall medicines were managed safely. However, we found that where emergency medicines were not held, there was no risk assessment available.

During our review of the clinical system, we found that staff involved people in reviews of their medicines and helped them understand how to manage their medicines safely. People knew what to do and who to contact if their condition did not improve or they experienced any unexpected symptoms. Staff received regular training, were competency assessed on medicines optimisation, and felt confident managing the storage, administration and recording of medicines. Staff managed prescription stationery appropriately and securely. Staff followed protocols to ensure they prescribed all medicines safely, and ensured people received all recommended medicines reviews and monitoring. Staff regularly checked the stock levels and expiry dates for all medicines, including vaccines. Staff stored medical gases, such as oxygen, safely and completed required safety risk assessments.

However, we found that not all expected emergency medicines were held, and there was no risk assessment for why specific medicines were not available. The provider took immediate action to review all emergency medicines to either stock the additional medicines or risk asses why a specific medicine was not required.

The provider had effective systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls, through our clinical searches we found patients were consulted with regarding any potential risk from medications. Staff followed established processes to ensure people prescribed medicines with specific risks received recommended monitoring. Prescribing data reviewed as part of our assessment confirmed this. There was a programme of regular clinical audits of prescribing that focused on improving care and treatment.