Fell Tower 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 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.
Managers encouraged staff to raise concerns when things went wrong. 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. Staff held regular meetings to discuss significant events and reviewed any other concerns. Although not all staff could attend these meetings, processes were in place to ensure that this information was shared within the whole team where appropriate. Learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes that improved care for others. For example, the provider upgraded the telephony system to help improve telephone access following feedback from people that use the service.

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 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 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 coded vulnerable patients requiring safeguarding appropriately. The practice maintained a list of vulnerable people and acted on concerns working in partnership with other organisations such as the local authority and Integrated Care Board (ICB).

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. Patients were advised on risks related to their condition and actions to take if their condition deteriorated. The service maintained Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) registers. A QOF register is a list of patients that a GP practice maintains to support specific quality indicators. It contains patients who have a specific chronic disease or condition, such as asthma, diabetes, heart failure, or hypertension.
Emergency equipment was available and maintained. Staff could recognise a deteriorating patient and knew of action to take.

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 with a third party 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. 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. Safe recruitment practices were followed.
However, when we assessed we also found some of the staff mandatory training was not up to date. The rate of completion on the training log was low for some mandatory courses such as the mental capacity act, sepsis, safeguarding adults, safeguarding children, and learning disability.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Cleaning schedules were in place and followed. Risk assessments and audits were completed, and actions taken to mitigate risks.

The service did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities, and preferences. Records that we reviewed showed that some patients had missed diagnosis for diabetes and were therefore not correctly coded as diabetes patients on the system. Records that were reviewed also indicated that some reviews missed tests that were overdue.

However, we also saw that 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 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.