Hampton 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

SAFE: The practice had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were mostly clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated.

There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

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.

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. Representatives from the Patient Participation Group (PPG) felt the provider took concerns seriously and proactively made improvements to the practice. 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. Learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes that improved care for others.

Staff were encouraged to develop solutions to improve practice performance. For example, a recently appointed nurse had developed a patient-centred letter to improve service uptake by patients with long-term conditions, such as asthma and diabetes. These are patient groups who are sometimes reluctant to engage with services for ongoing health reviews.

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 in place for processing information relating to new patients. The practice 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 made use of an online triage system to allocate available appointments. The system had been set up to ensure that all patients aged under 16 seeking appointments would be referred to a duty doctor for triage. The duty doctor contacted parents/guardians on the same day.

All pathology and radiology results were allocated electronically to the requesting clinician for review. Normal results were automatically saved to patients’ records. Abnormal or urgent results were prioritised and reviewed by the requesting clinician, or another clinician in their absence. Results requiring action were documented and the administration team was tasked to contact the patient to arrange a follow up appointment.

The practice 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 practice 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.

During staff interviews we found that all staff correctly named the safeguarding lead, however, they consistently named a deputy safeguarding lead not named in the safeguarding policy. When we raised this with the practice, we were provided with the up-to-date policy. The revised policy named the deputy lead whom staff had identified.

One member of the nursing team had recently joined the practice and had taken an early opportunity to make links with the local health visitors team.

The practice 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. The emergency medicines and equipment were stored in a locked room accessible via doors at both ends. All relevant staff had easy access to the room via an entry code.

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 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. Health and safety risk assessments and audits had been undertaken and risks identified had been addressed. There was a business continuity plan in place which was monitored and reviewed.

The practice was located in a purpose build building with all patient facilities located on the ground floor. There were ease of access doors for patient entry which opened automatically to facilitate access for patients with mobility issues and wheelchair users.

There was a patient accessible toilet which was appropriately furnished, including an emergency alarm. However, there was a water leak from the handwash basin.

During our site visit we also observed an external clinical waste disposal bin was not locked. This posed risks as the bin was in an area that was publicly accessible. When we raised this with the practice, we were initially told the lock was defective. However, the practice later identified that staff were unfamiliar with the locking mechanism. The bin was subsequently appropriately secured.

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. 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.

Staff participated in annual appraisals. There were also informal opportunities to discuss matters with senior staff. All staff we spoke to during this assessment felt confident to raise any concerns or issues with managers across the practice.

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 recently appointed designated infection, prevention and control (IPC) lead and all staff had had relevant training.

The IPC lead had carried out an in-depth audit which had identified a number of concerns. This set out important information to assist the practice in resolving each of the concerns, including setting a priority level for resolution, together with other fields detailing dates for action(s) being taken, evidence of improvement realised and Impact. Concerns that had not been resolved had target completion dates as well as notes confirming they remained in progress.

The practice made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

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. Medicines 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.

The provider had effective systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls. Staff followed established processes to ensure people prescribed medicines with specific risks received recommended monitoring.

We spoke to a non-medical prescriber who confirmed there were regular formal supervision sessions, together with less formal discussions that could be arranged by either the non-medical prescriber or the supervisor. We were also told that there were arrangements in place so that in the absence of the supervisor there was always a clinician available to support and supervise non-medical prescribers.