Martonside 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 assessed 2 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for this area with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question remains good. We found safety was a top priority, and staff took all concerns seriously. When things went wrong, staff acted to ensure people remained safe. Managers investigated all reported incidents to reduce the likelihood of them happening again. The practice ensured medicines and treatments were safe and met people's needs. There was appropriate optimisation, management, and oversight of medicines within the practice.

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.

We spoke with 4 patients in advance of the site visit and reviewed other evidence of patient feedback collected by the practice. There was no specific feedback related to this quality statement. However, we saw evidence the practice took account of patient views, such as from complaints and surveys, to learn from and improve the way the service was delivered.

Staff and leaders told us they engaged and listened to patients. Staff told us there was an open culture and staff were encouraged to contribute and share ideas during meetings. We saw evidence of the provider reviewing their own practice through audits to improve their service and keep the patients safe.

There were processes in place for staff to report incidents, near misses and safety events. We saw the practice used these to support learning and improvement. The practice used quality improvement and clinical audit to support improvements to the care and treatment provided. We found effective processes for learning from complaints and other patient feedback.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We reviewed the feedback received by the practice (through complaints, compliments, NHS friends and family results) as well as information shared with CQC by people who used the service. Generally, the feedback did not relate to this quality statement. Patients we spoke with before the site inspection did not raise any concerns about medicines. They spoke positively about how effective they found the medication review process to be, sharing examples from their own experiences.

Staff received regular training on medicines management, and felt confident managing the storage, administration and recording of medicines. There were protocols in place to ensure prescription related stationery was kept securely. Emergency medication and accessories were kept in an accessible place to ensure ease of access during an emergency. We saw evidence of staff carrying out medication audits with a view of improving patient safety and outcomes.

We found that staff managed medicines safely and securely. They utilised various forms of security such as lockable units and tamper proof seals where appropriate. There was evidence that staff carried out regular checks on stock levels and expiry dates. The practice was close to the accident and emergency hospital, as a result they did not keep some of the usual emergency medication in their stock. We saw risk assessments covering this decision. Refrigerators were in situ and there was evidence of regular recording of temperature levels.

The provider had systems in place to provide regular monitoring of the specific risks associated with certain medicines. There was evidence that staff followed processes in how they prescribed medicines and carried out reviews. The practice pharmacist and pharmacy technician were also involved in carrying out some medication reviews. This helped increase capacity for GPs to focus on other clinical areas.

The practice told us the closure of a specialist GP service for people who misused substances in 2023 had impacted on the prescribing of controlled drugs due to the influx of patients. The practice told us they had put initiatives in place to bring down the rate of these types of medicines. For example, we saw evidence that the provider had initiated an audit which resulted in a quality improvement project which successfully reduced high-dose opioid prescriptions at this surgery.