The Gables 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 good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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. Representatives from the Patient Participation Group (PPG) felt the provider took concerns seriously and proactively made improvements to the service. For example, practice leaders introduced photos of staff members in the waiting room following the PPG suggesting it would be helpful. Managers encouraged staff to raise concerns when things went wrong. During staff meetings, the whole team discussed and learnt from clinical issues. Staff felt there was an open culture, and that safety was a top priority. The provider had processes for staff to report incidents, near misses and safety events. There was a system to record and investigate complaints, and when things went wrong, staff apologised and gave people support.

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. We received positive feedback from representatives from local care homes regarding this service. GPs conducted weekly ward rounds within the aligned care homes.

The National GP Patient Survey 2025 data showed that 51% 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. The practice maintained a list of vulnerable people and acted on concerns working in partnership with other organisations. Staff attended regular multidisciplinary meetings to discuss any safeguarding concerns. There was a named lead for both adult and child safeguarding responsibilities, and staff were aware of who these people were within the practice.

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 87% 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 lower than the national average of 91%.

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.

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.

The service did not always assess or manage the risk of infection.

The practice did not maintain a record of the immunisation status of non-clinical staff who did have direct contact with patients. Practice leaders had not completed a risk assessment that considered the impact of this. Following the inspection, practice leaders collected immunisation information from all staff and included this process within the recruitment policy for any new staff. The practice had a designated infection, prevention and control lead and all staff had had relevant training. Cleaning schedules were in place and followed.

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

Coding of medication reviews was not always effective. Codes within patient records did not distinguish between a structured medication review which would consider all prescribed medicines, and a review of medication which may only consider 1 or some of a person’s prescribed medicines. Codes used for medication reviews for people living in a care home were not consistent with those used within the practice. Practice leaders were made aware of this and had plans to address this following the inspection. Practice leaders told us that there were a number of structured medications reviews that were currently due. Practice leaders had recognised this undertaking and had reviewed the reasons for this, which included a vacancy within the pharmacy team. At the time of our inspection there was a new pharmacist who had been employed. Practice leaders were in the process of addressing medication reviews that were outstanding, and identifying ways to prioritise those patients at highest risk.

Staff received regular training and felt confident in managing the storage, administration and recording of medicines. Staff managed prescription stationery appropriately and securely. Medicines including controlled drugs were stored securely and at appropriate temperatures. Staff regularly checked the stock levels and expiry dates for all medicines, including emergency medicines, vaccines, and controlled drugs. Waste medicines were recorded and disposed of appropriately including medicines returned by patients. Staff stored medical gases, such as oxygen, safely and completed required safety risk assessments. The provider had effective systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls. There was a programme of regular clinical audits of prescribing that focused on improving care and treatment.