Bodyvie Medi-Clinic

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 Inadequate. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

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 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.

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. Our review of staff meeting minutes confirmed that the whole team discussed and learnt from clinical issues.

The provider had processes for staff to report incidents, near misses and safety events. Staff we spoke with knew how to report and record incidents. Incident reporting was a standard agenda item on their monthly governance meetings. Minutes we reviewed showed that incidents that had occurred in the past 24 months had been recorded.

There was a system to record and investigate complaints, and when things went wrong, staff apologised and gave people support.

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 such as patients referred to their general practice (GP) doctor.

There were systems in place for processing information relating to new patients. Details taken included medical history, allergies, GP details, and existing conditions. Referrals and test results were managed in a timely way. Patients were contacted promptly and test results always explained by a doctor.

At the previous assessment we found that the service did not have effective systems in place to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse. During this assessment, the provider demonstrated that they had systems and processes in place to safeguard and safely manage patients.

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 appropriately.

Safeguarding policies were in place and known to staff, who were appropriately trained in safeguarding procedures. The lead GP was the lead for safeguarding and all staff we spoke with were aware of this. All staff completed safeguarding adult and children’s training to the required level for their role. All clinical staff completed adult and children safeguarding training to level 3 and non-clinical staff completed training to level two. Our review of records confirmed that all staff were up to date with their training.

The practice had systems in place so they could maintain a list of vulnerable people and act on concerns if required. For example, they had a system to flag patient who were vulnerable and had a process to refer information to people’s NHS doctor and to the local authority.

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.

Emergency equipment was available and maintained. This included medical oxygen and a defibrillator. Systems were in place for staff to check medicine and equipment. We reviewed equipment and medicine, and all items were available in line with recognised guidance. Staff could recognise a deteriorating patient and knew of action to take. All staff had completed basic life support training. Patients were advised on risks related to their condition and actions to take if their condition deteriorated.

At the previous assessment we found that the provider did not have appropriate systems in place to manage and monitor the safety of the environment. During this assessment we found they now had systems in place to detect and control 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, there were contracts for maintenance and annual servicing of gas and electrical appliances and equipment. Risk assessments for fire and legionella were completed in a timely manner. 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. We saw that the plan was effective as there was a business continuity event on the day of our site visit which was managed well with no disruption to the service.

At the previous assessment we found that the service did not have a policy in place to safely recruit staff to the service. Systems and processes were not in place to monitor training and development. At this assessment we found that the service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled, and experienced staff who were recruited safely to the service. Staff received effective support, supervision, and development.

The service had systems in place that reflected guidance in regard to schedule 3 requirements of the Health and Social Care Act. This included completing disclosure and barring service checks, collecting copies of medical indemnity insurance for clinical staff, and obtaining references.

We reviewed staff records and saw supervision notes and appraisals confirming staff were supported. 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. Safe recruitment practices were followed.

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.

The service had a designated infection, prevention and control lead and all staff had had relevant training. Cleaning schedules were in place and followed. Risk assessments and audits were completed, and actions taken to mitigate risks.

At the previous assessment we found that the service did not systems in place to enable safe prescribing and patient medication reviews. At this assessment we found the service 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 and felt confident managing the storage, administration and recording of medicines. Staff managed prescription stationery appropriately and securely.

Waste medicines were recorded and disposed of appropriately including medicines returned by patients. The provider had effective systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls. Alerts were received by the practice manager and shared appropriately with the staff team.

Staff followed established processes to ensure people prescribed medicines with specific risks received recommended monitoring.