Dr Yousef Rashid Also known as Shifa Medical Practice

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

At this assessment we assessed 3 quality statements. The scores for this key question have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection. The practice was monitoring its prescribing in line with guidelines and implementing patient safety alerts. The practice was clean with effective infection prevention and control procedures. The practice was ensuring it learnt from any safety incidents and complaints. Our rating for this key question remains 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.

Patients providing feedback for this assessment had no specific views about the learning culture at the practice. We noted that the provider would contact patients who were affected by an incident to offer a verbal or written apology and an explanation.

Leaders told us they encouraged an open working culture and staff confirmed that they were supported to raise any concerns, safety incidents and near misses. Staff confirmed any such cases were openly discussed in the staff meetings. Staff at all levels could provide recent examples of learning.

The practice had policies and processes in place to learn from safety incidents; national patient safety alerts; complaints and compliments and other forms of internal and external feedback. We saw evidence that the practice used this information to improve. Our assessment included a detailed review of the way the practice had implemented recent safety alerts and we did not identify any concerns.

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.

Patients providing feedback for this assessment did not raise any concerns about infection control or cleanliness at the practice.

Staff were able to describe to us how they followed infection prevention and control policies and guidelines. Staff confirmed they received effective training and updates on infection prevention and control.

We observed the practice to be clean and well organised on the day of our visit, for example there were sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment; clearly displayed instructions on handwashing; and safe facilities for the disposal of sharps.

The practice had comprehensive infection prevention and control policies and carried out regular audits. The leaders were acting on the issues identified in the most recent audit, for example, liaising with the building management team about upgrading certain fixtures and fittings to meet current guidelines. At this visit, we noted gaps in the immunisation history for 3 out of 4 staff files we reviewed. Following our visit, the provider sent us evidence that this had been addressed.

There were no concerns raised about medicines or prescribing in the feedback from people who used the service. One patient commented positively about how the practice had quickly assessed their condition and issued a prescription promptly for an urgent health problem.

Staff described established systems in place for the safe ordering, storage, and administration of medicines, including vaccinations. Clinical staff and leaders explained the systems they had in place to ensure medicines were prescribed safely and in line with practice policy and national guidelines. The practice had access to clinical pharmacist resource through the primary care network. The clinical pharmacists supported the practice for example, in auditing prescribing against guidelines and carrying out structured medication reviews with patients. The lead GP described this as a positive development for patient care.

The practice stored blank prescriptions securely and their use was monitored in line with national guidance. The practice held appropriate emergency medicines safely and monitored stock levels and expiry dates. Vaccines were appropriately stored, monitored and transported in line with guidance to ensure they remained safe and effective. The practice had improved its monitoring of the vaccine fridge temperatures since our last inspection.

Our assessment included a review of the safety of prescribing through structured searches and reviews of the practice medical records system. The results showed the practice had appropriate systems in place to ensure patients were appropriately monitored and safety alerts about medicines were implemented. The practice had improved the way it recorded medicines reviews since the previous inspection although there remained scope to include more detail on context within these records.

Staff took steps to ensure antimicrobial medicines, such as antibiotics, were prescribed appropriately. The practice audited its antibiotic prescribing and was performing in line with the England average for its rate of antibiotic prescribing.