Drs Lavin, Findlay, Remedios and Thompson Also known as Whiteacres 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 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 meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

Leaders 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. Managers encouraged staff to raise concerns when things went wrong. Staff felt there was an open culture, and safety was a top priority. Leaders 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. Learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes which improved care for others.

Leaders and staff 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 and followed up promptly when required.

Leaders worked closely with people and healthcare partners to understand what safety meant to them and how best to achieve it. They focused on improving lives while protecting people’s rights to live free from harm, abuse, and discrimination. Staff responded promptly to concerns, provided a key contact for support, and shared issues appropriately. Safeguarding policies were well known, and staff were trained to apply them effectively. The practice maintained and regularly updated a list of vulnerable people, acting on concerns in partnership with other organisations, including the local primary care network safeguarding lead. This collaborative approach ensured safeguarding issues were addressed quickly and consistently across all practices in the local area. These measures ensured a consistently high standard of safeguarding across the practice.

Staff worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs which was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things which mattered to them. Emergency equipment was available and maintained. Staff could recognise a deteriorating patient and knew of action to take. This included easy access to the duty GP who sat in the office by reception. People confirmed they were advised on risks related to their condition and actions to take if their condition deteriorated.

Leaders proactively managed environmental risks and maintained equipment, facilities, and technology through robust contracts and regular safety audits. A monitored business continuity plan ensured resilience. Waiting areas were calm and well-organised. Leaders adopted digital tools, including a consent-based system for recording consultation notes, enabling clinicians to focus fully on patient care. These measures created a safe, efficient environment which supported high-quality care.

Leaders ensured enough qualified, skilled, and experienced staff were in place and provided effective support, supervision, and development. Staff collaborated to deliver safe care which met people’s individual needs. The practice employed a mix of clinical and non-clinical roles. Training remained up to date, and leaders actively managed staff learning needs and development. Staff worked within their agreed areas of competence and could request additional training to advance their careers, which leaders encouraged. The team followed safe recruitment practices consistently.

Leaders 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 received relevant training. Cleaning schedules were in place and followed. Risk assessments and audits including one from the integrated care board IPC lead were completed, and actions taken to mitigate risks.

Leaders ensured medicines and treatments were safe and tailored to people’s needs, capacities, and preferences. They involved individuals in planning, including during any changes. Staff supported people in reviewing their medicines and helped them understand how to manage them safely. People knew what to do and who to contact if their condition did not improve or if they experienced unexpected symptoms. Staff received regular training, were assessed for competency in medicines optimisation, and felt confident in administering and recording medicines. However, we found some medicines were stored in an area where room temperature was not monitored regularly, and some fridges were slightly overstocked, preventing proper air circulation. Leaders acted promptly to resolve these issues. Staff routinely checked stock levels and expiry dates for all medicines, including emergency medicines and vaccines. The provider had effective systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls. Staff took steps to prescribe medicines appropriately to optimise care outcomes, including antibiotics. There was also a programme of regular clinical audits of prescribing, focused on improving care and treatment. Clinical searches completed by the GP Specialist advisor showed monitoring in areas such as long-term conditions was good. We identified one minor concern, which related to how reviews were recorded in people’s records. While all reviews were correctly coded in the system, they would benefit from additional comments explaining what was reviewed.