South View Partnership

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 has remained good. We found that the service was providing safe services in all of the quality statements that were reviewed in this assessment.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 good. We found that the service was providing safe services in all of the quality statements that were reviewed in this assessment. We found that the service had exceptionally robust safeguarding systems in place. They demonstrated a strong commitment to improving safeguarding pathways, not only within the practice, but across the local borough.

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.

All of the staff we spoke to were aware of how to raise incidents. Staff we spoke to detailed how learning was shared with them on both an individual basis, and organisation wide. Leaders detailed how they supported the process, and staff as required.
There was a system for recording and acting on events and incidents. The service provided details of how they had reviewed and investigated all reported events in the past year. The documentation included where learning had been shared with both individuals and the wider team. The service identified themes and took action to improve safety in the service. A weekly newsletter was also in place to share learning from complaints and internal reviews.
The service learned from external safety events and patient safety alerts. The service had an effective mechanism in place to review alerts and disseminate them to members of the team as required.
 

The staff we spoke to were all aware of care pathways, including referrals and taking on care of those patients who had been discharged from other services. Leaders at the service shared relevant information with staff in team meetings.
The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored, and had processes in place to ensure that referrals and discharges were managed quickly. There were also systems in place to ensure that where care was shared, information was shared between organisations, for example where blood tests and monitoring were undertaken by another provider.
 

The service has demonstrated an active role in driving improvements to local safeguarding pathways across the borough of Bromley. For example, the service participated in the Bromley Safeguarding Children Partnership Multiagency Audit, which looked at how a number of safeguarding cases were managed.

The practice had a safeguarding GP lead who was allocated time to review patients where there were safeguarding concerns. One of the managers at the service was an operational lead for safeguarding, with oversight of ensuring follow up and documentation of discussions. Staff at the service to whom we spoke were aware of how to make safeguarding referrals and knew the identity of leads if further advice was needed. Leaders told us how advice was available to staff as required.
The service worked with other agencies to support patients and protect them from neglect and abuse. Staff took steps to protect patients from abuse, neglect, harassment, discrimination and breaches of their dignity and respect.
The provider carried out staff checks at the time of recruitment and on an ongoing basis where appropriate. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were undertaken where required. (DBS checks identify whether a person has a criminal record or is on an official list of people barred from working in roles where they may have contact with children or adults who may be vulnerable).
All staff received up-to-date safeguarding and safety training appropriate to their role.
 

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.
Leaders told us that staff were informed in managing risk, and that standing items such as safeguarding and incidents were discussed at all meetings. Staff reported that they were included in risk management, and that they were happy to report when things went wrong. Staff also received fire safety and health and safety training.
The service utilised a local referral pathway for which they had piloted some of the systems. The service had developed protocols within the service, including a total triage model, that could redirect patients either elsewhere in the practice or to pharmacies and other community services, where an appointment to see a GP was not required.
 

We observed that the building in which the service was in place was fit for use. All equipment had been checked and calibrated as required. The service had a full range of emergency medicines and equipment (such as a defibrillator and oxygen) in place to ensure that emergencies could be safely managed.
Staff at the service were aware of where all emergency equipment was stored. Leaders at the service were able to detail the policies and procedures that were in place to ensure that the environment was safe.
The service had undertaken a full range of risk assessments to ensure that the environment was safe, including premises, and health and safety. Where there was learning from these risk assessments, we saw that the service acted quickly to address any specific issues raised.
 

There was a range of clinical and non-clinical roles within the practice, and staff received effective support, supervision and development. 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. Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.
The service had a clear induction program. Staff told us that the induction when they started at the service had been helpful. Staff also received 1 to 1 and team support from managers and received appraisals.
The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to provide safe care. Employees who we spoke to said that they felt there were sufficient staff at the practice.
 

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. The practice had a designated infection, prevention and control lead and all staff had received relevant training. Cleaning schedules were in place and followed. Risk assessments and audits were completed, and actions taken to mitigate risks.
We observed that the service was clean, and all the clinical areas at the practice were fit for use. Curtains were changed regularly, and sharps and other clinical waste management was managed appropriately. Staff we spoke to knew how to access and use a spillage kit when needed.
 

We carried out searches on the practice’s clinical records as part of our assessment. We found that patients who had been prescribed higher risk medicines routinely received appropriate monitoring tests and reviews from clinicians. For example, we reviewed the records of patients who had been prescribed direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Patients being prescribed this medicine need regular urea and electrolytes testing, must have their weight measured regularly, and must have the creatinine clearance calculated. Of 328 patients, only 8 were overdue any monitoring, and in the 5 records of these 8 that we reviewed, active follow up of the patients was taking place, including where required short scripting of medicines until such time that blood tests had been carried out.
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 took steps to ensure they prescribed medicines appropriately to optimise care outcomes, including antibiotics. Prescribing data reviewed as part of our assessment confirmed this. For example, the number of antimicrobials issued by the provider was lower than local and national averages.
The provider had systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls.