Stourport 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 found safety was a top priority for the practice. Leaders and staff took all concerns seriously. When things went wrong, staff acted to ensure patients remained safe. Leaders investigated all reported incidents to reduce the likelihood of them happening again. Medicines were managed safely and prescribed in line with national guidance. Staff ensured areas were clean and equipment was fit for purpose and wore personal protective equipment when required. Leaders and staff were trained to recognise and act appropriately when safeguarding concerns were raised for both adults and children.

This service scored 78 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Patients were positive about the care they received. They felt staff treated them with compassion and understanding. Patients said they felt listened to when they raised concerns and changes were made when appropriate. The national GP patient survey carried out from January to March 2024 had 105 responses. This found 95% of patients who responded stated the healthcare professional was good at listening to them. In addition, 94% of patients had confidence and trust in the health care professional they saw or spoke with.

Feedback from staff told us of an open and honest working environment where they felt supported. Staff were able to raise concerns and the outcomes from these were shared with the team to support staff learning.

The provider had a significant event policy and processes in place. Staff used these to report incidents near misses and safety events. There was a system to record and investigate complaints When things went wrong staff apologised and gave patients support. Learning from incidents and complaints was shared with staff so they could use this to improve their practice.

Patients received safe and continuous care. Although this was a large practice patients said referrals were made promptly on their behalf.

Staff understood systems and processes in place for making referrals for patients. Staff had knowledge and understanding of local referral processes and arrangements. Staff were able to tell us the process for dealing with two week wait referrals and had systems in place to ensure these were followed up. Staff shared examples of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings they attended and how these supported referral pathways for patients.

Leaders explained they had a range of regular multidisciplinary team meetings to discuss and improve outcomes for patients. This included weekly meetings to discuss patients living in care homes. The local integrated care board told us they did not have any concerns about the practice.

Leaders had a referral policy and appropriate processes in place for referral to other services. This included urgent referrals to specialist services such as the hospital. Staff had a protocol in place to check referrals which should be seen within 2 weeks were followed up and action taken if needed.

We did not review this evidence category as part of this assessment.

Leaders had a robust system in place for safeguarding children and adults. All staff received training in safeguarding and how to recognise domestic abuse. They understood their responsibilities to report safeguarding concerns and knew who the safeguarding leads were for the practice.

Leaders showed us evidence of meetings about safeguarding which involved partner organisations. These showed positive interactions which benefitted the safety of patients.

Leaders had policies in place for safeguarding adults and children. The practice had two GP leads for safeguarding. One for children and one for adults. They worked closely together to provide a full overview of safeguarding cases so support could be provided holistically to families as well as to individual adults and children. Referrals were made as per the policy, and all were followed up on a regular basis. Concerns around domestic abuse were always raised as a safeguarding. For concerns about children, regular meetings were held with health visitors, specialist midwifes and the police. Staff providing the triage system alerted GPs if an urgent appointment made for a child was missed so this could be followed up promptly.

Patients were fully involved in their care and treatment. Staff discussed potential risks with them and ensured they had the information needed to keep themselves safe.

Leaders and staff involved patients in managing risks to their health. Treatment options were discussed, and advice given with follow up appointments where appropriate.

Leaders had systems and processes in place to ensure staff understood the need to fully involve patients in managing risk. Staff followed internal policies and operating procedures which were based on best practice guidance when assessing and treating patients. Assessments were detailed and covered all aspects of risk to ensure patients received the appropriate treatment and support.

Patients were positive about the practice. Most really liked the large open spaces for waiting and the additional clinic rooms available. A few patients said it felt less personal than the two smaller locations where the practice used to work from.

Facilities and equipment in the premises were well-maintained and suitable for their intended purpose. On the day of our visit the premises were visibly clean and tidy. Leaders had ensured there were safe areas for patients such as a quiet space for autistic people and those with additional sensory needs. There was a designated area for children to wait which was decorated with a mural and had age appropriate and easy to clean play equipment.

Leaders had effective arrangements to monitor the safety and upkeep of the premises. The service conducted safety risk assessments such as fire, Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) and Legionella (a term for a particular bacterium which can contaminate water systems in buildings). The service undertook annual portable appliance testing to ensure equipment was safe to use.

Patients we spoke with and feedback we reviewed did not identify any concerns with staffing levels. Patients were complimentary about staff and the support they provided.

Leaders explained their recruitment processes which they used to ensure appropriate numbers of suitably trained staff were employed. This supported the delivery of consistently safe, good quality care which met the needs of the patients. Staff told us they received the support they needed to deliver safe care and they could request additional training or support if needed.

There were policies in place relating to the management of the practice to help maintain a safe and effective workforce. This included recruitment, appraisal, supervision, incident reporting, performance management and training. There were systems to ensure staff with specific protected characteristics were not disadvantaged.

Patients had no concerns with the management of infection, prevent and control (IPC) at the practice. They said staff wore appropriate levels of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as aprons and gloves when required.

Staff had completed appropriate IPC training relevant to their role. Staff told us they knew their roles and responsibilities around IPC.

The practice was visibly clean and suitable personal protective equipment (PPE) was available in clinical areas. Information posters were displayed including those related to sharps injury management, effective handwashing and clinical waste management to support good practice.

Leaders had IPC policies in place and regular audits ensured infection control was reviewed regularly. Staff completed actions from audits promptly. Leaders ensured staff had clear roles and responsibilities, including a lead for IPC. Staff received role appropriate training.

Patient feedback raised no concerns about the prescribing of their medicines.

Staff involved patients in reviews of their medicines and helped them understand how to manage their medicines safely. Staff had good knowledge of current and relevant best practice and professional guidance.

Medicines were stored safely and securely with access restricted to authorised staff. Staff had the appropriate authorisation and training to administer medicines such as flu vaccines. The practice had appropriate emergency medicines. There was medical oxygen and a defibrillator on site and systems to ensure these were regularly checked and fit for use. Vaccines were appropriately stored, monitored and transported in line with national guidance to ensure they remained safe and effective. Leaders could demonstrate the prescribing competence of non-medical prescribers, and there was a regular review of their prescribing practice. The practice employed one person whose role was to control all stock as it came into the practice and was replaced promptly when used.

Patients’ medicines were appropriately prescribed in line with the relevant legislation, current national guidance and best available evidence. We carried out a remote review of clinical searches which showed there was a process for monitoring patients’ health in relation to the use of medicines including medicines which required monitoring. Leaders had a system for recording and acting on safety alerts.

Leaders had processes in place to ensure patients received the best possible outcomes depending on their health condition.