Lisson Grove and Woolwell Medical Centres

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 a total of 2 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question remains good. We found limited evidence of checks and audits of non-GP clinicians consultation records, by GPs. Staff and management told us there were meetings where staff shared information and learnings. There were limited records of these for auditing purposes. The learning sessions for clinicians appeared, sporadic, limited in number and were not backed up by a study of patient population. Neither they were linked to a recorded analysis of learning needs of individual clinicians. People told us more preventative methods of care and treatments and timely follow up appointments for patients discharged from hospital were needed.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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

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.

The management told us that there were clinical meetings for sharing information and learnings. Staff told us there were meetings to discuss operational issues. Staff told us that they felt supported by the management. However, there were no current record of formal supervision and appraisals for staff. There were little evidence of non-GP clinicians’ consultation record being checked by the GPs. Staff told us patients’ complaints were being discussed in the team meetings. However, this did not form part of a strategic approach to improving patients care and therefore the scope of such discussions appeared limited. Records showed that some of the staff had not received up to date mandatory training needed to support them in their work.

There was no processes in place for regular checks and audits of non-GP clinicians consultation records by GPs. Staff said they felt supported by the management. However there was not a process for formal supervision and appraisals in place. Training records showed staff have not always completed their mandatory training when due. The practice used different methods to gather people’s feedback. However there were no recorded processes in place for using patients’ feedback for improving services. The practice lacked necessary processes for keeping proper records and audits. This included minutes of meetings, a training matrix and audit of consultations.

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