Forest House Surgery

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

There was a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty, in which concerns about safety were listened to, safety events were investigated and reported thoroughly, and lessons were learnt to identify and embed good practices. Medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs in most cases, the practice were responsive and took action on areas we highlighted. The areas we covered during our assessment were learning culture, safe systems pathways and transitions, safeguarding and medicines optimisation.

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.

Leaders told us they had systems and processes in place to raise concerns which we were shown evidence of during the assessment. Although at times we found details to be limited there was a clear process of escalation and outcome, and we found no patients at risk. Shared learning from events was discussed weekly at senior level and monthly with all staff. If unable to attend these meetings staff would receive notifications making them aware of meeting minutes or outcomes.

Staff told us that risks and events were shared and learned from. They said there was not a blame culture and they were encouraged and supported to raise concerns and involved when needed to investigate and deliver outcomes.

We found evidence of safety and continuity of care throughout the patients journey. This happened through joined-up working between the provider and other services when people are moving between services.

The partners told us they each had specific lead areas to ensure oversight, they explained policies and procedures in place which allowed them to have key oversight and drive improvements.

Peoples experience gained from “give feedback on care” was mainly positive regarding timely and appropriate referrals or feeling that they had been listened to and signposted to relevant support.

Staff told us about signposting and workflow regarding external services and the use of referrals. We found staff were knowledgeable in their role and were aware of support networks in the local area.

During our assessment we found that the provider had systems and processes in place to ensure patients were safeguarded from harm. We gained remote access to patient records and found no risk associated with patients on the safeguarding register.

Partners told us about regular meetings that were held within the practice where safeguarding was discussed. The partners were able to demonstrate a clear understanding evidenced by policies and processes to ensure that necessary care was taken.

Staff told us about how they would raise safeguarding concerns, we found they had a clear understanding of safeguarding with the appropriate training in place.

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.

The practice provided evidence of documented protocols for the management of medicines. This ensured adequate reviews were conducted during patient contact and guidelines were followed.

During our on-site assessment, we reviewed the medical fridges and emergency medicines and found robust systems in place to ensure in date and ready to use equipment and medicines.

Staff told us that they involved patients in decisions about their medicines during reviews and assessments. We found that staff had good knowledge of current and relevant best practice and professional guidance.

During our assessment we conducted remote clinical searches which allowed us to review patients medical records to understand the practices patient population, and to ensure they were receiving safe and effective care. On the whole we found patients were being well managed and medicines were being appropriately prescribed and reviewed. We highlighted some patients to the practice that we deemed at potential risk, to which the practice were responsive and provided evidence of follow ups and actions taken.