Faversham 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 patients 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 practice 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. Managers encouraged staff to raise concerns when things went wrong. The practice 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 patients support. Learning from incidents and complaints was shared with relevant staff to help prevent recurrence.

The practice 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 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. The practice had an established and effective system to monitor urgent suspected cancer referrals.

The practice did not always ensure safeguarding information was consistently recorded across all relevant patient records.

The practice’s clinical system alerted staff of children that were on the at-risk register. We looked at a sample of 5 records of children that were subject to safeguarding at the time of our assessment. Out of the 5 records we reviewed, 4 had not had an alert placed on other family or household members in line with the service’s own process. After the onsite visit, the practice added an alert to the records of all family members and household members of children on the risk register. The provider told us this would be regularly reviewed to ensure safeguarding systems were working efficiently.

However, staff had access to adult and children safeguarding leads in the practice and could also escalate concerns externally if required. Safeguarding policies were in place and known to staff, who were appropriately trained in safeguarding procedures. The practice maintained a list of vulnerable patients and acted on concerns, working in partnership with other organisations.

There were notices in the practice that advised patients chaperones were available if required.

The practice worked with patients to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet patients’ needs that was safe, supportive and enabled patients to do the things that mattered to them.

Emergency equipment was available. 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.

In the 2025 national GP patient survey, approximately 91% of respondents reported being involved in decisions about their care, which was in line with the national average.

The practice 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. For example, a fire risk assessment was completed in December 2025. Risks had been identified and resolved. For example, the need to ensure flammable materials were kept at a safe distance from electrical supplies. Staff had undertaken annual fire safety training, and the practice carried out regular fire drills to help ensure compliance with safety protocols. Staff appointed as fire marshals received appropriate training.

There were established and effective systems to identify, manage and mitigate risks to patients. Health and safety risk assessments had been completed in February 2026, and no outstanding risks were identified.

Contracts were also in place to ensure the premises and equipment were maintained. For example, routine legionella testing, portable appliance testing and equipment calibration were routinely conducted by an external company.

Records demonstrated fire alarms and emergency lighting were tested regularly.

The practice 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. Staff training was up to date, learning needs and development of staff was managed appropriately. We reviewed a sample of staff training records and saw all staff had received training appropriate to their role. We also reviewed a sample of recruitment files and found safe recruitment practices were followed. We also saw evidence of competency checks being completed to ensure staff were working within their agreed areas of competence.

The 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 (IPC) lead and all staff had had relevant training. Cleaning schedules were in place and followed.

The practice had completed an IPC audit in May 2025, which identified areas for improvement. These included the need for more comprehensive cleaning schedules, ensuring sharps bins were closed when not in use, and confirming that waste bins were lidded and operated by a foot pedal. During the onsite visit, we observed the identified issues had been addressed.

Staff had access to gloves, aprons and masks to mitigate the risk of infection to patients. Policies outlined how staff should triage and manage patients with potentially contagious diseases.

Clinical staff used single use items and had access to body fluid spillage kits to mitigate the risk of infection to patients.

The practice did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe.

It did not always complete medicines monitoring in accordance with relevant guidelines.

Our remote clinical searches identified 637 patients prescribed a blood‑thinning medicine. This medicine requires regular monitoring to ensure they remain safe and effective. Of these, 213 patients had reduced renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate 30–59; a measure of kidney function indicating how effectively the kidneys filter waste). The search identified 49 patients who may potentially be overdue monitoring, with no recorded monitoring in the previous 4-6 months as per national guidance. We reviewed a sample of 5 patient records and found monitoring had been completed within the last 13 months for all 5 patients; however, all 5 patients had been invited for a review prior to the clinical searches being undertaken. After the inspection, the practice reviewed the remaining patients identified by the search and invited those requiring follow‑up to attend for a review and appropriate monitoring. The practice also told us they intend to continue running weekly searches to ensure ongoing oversight of this patient group.

We also reviewed patients who had been prescribed medicines used for neuropathic pain. The search identified 36 patients who may not have had a medicines review in the past 12 months. We reviewed a sample of 5 patient records and found their most recent medicines reviews had taken place between 2022 and 2024. We saw that all 5 patients had been invited for a review prior to the clinical searches being undertaken. After the inspection, the practice informed us they had reviewed the remaining patients identified by the search and had invited those requiring a medicine review.

However, we identified appropriate monitoring for patients prescribed immunosuppressant medicines.

We also reviewed a sample of medicine reviews and found they were of good quality, with clinicians considering each individual medicine the patient was prescribed.

The practice had effective systems to manage and respond to Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency alerts (MHRA - providing alerts, recalls and safety information on medicines and medical devices).

Medicines were stored securely, and staff regularly checked the stock levels and expiry dates for all medicines.

There were systems and processes in place to monitor fridge temperatures to maintain the integrity of stored medicines.

Staff managed prescription stationery appropriately and securely.

The service also maintained lower than national averages of prescribing rates for certain medicines, such as antibiotics or gabapentinoids, to ensure positive outcomes for patients receiving them.