Lostock Hall 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 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 safety was a priority, and staff took all concerns seriously. When things went wrong, staff acted to ensure people remained safe. Managers investigated reported incidents to reduce the likelihood of them happening again. Documentation, especially around the discussions staff had about learning from significant events, needed to be improved. When the practice referred people to secondary care they monitored the referral to ensure it had been accepted and people had made an appointment.

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.

Managers encouraged staff to raise concerns when things went wrong. Staff were able to describe the process to raise concerns and gave us examples of learning from significant events and complaints. Significant events and complaints were discussed during team meetings, and staff gave us examples of this. Staff felt there was an open culture, and that safety was a top priority.

The provider had processes for staff to report incidents, near misses and safety events. There was a system to record and investigate complaints, and when things went wrong, staff apologised and gave people support. The significant event policy mentioned the evidence the practice must keep relating to significant event analysis, which included having structured team meetings to discuss, investigate and analyse significant events. Some meeting minutes did not contain enough detail to inform staff not attending the meetings, and on occasions unminuted meetings were held where significant events were discussed. The provider told us they would review their significant event policy and ensure that going forward appropriate meeting minutes would be kept. Learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes that improved care for others.

When people moved between services, there was a plan in place for what happened next, who would do what and all the practical arrangements were in place.

The lead GP and manager explained the system of making referrals, in particular urgent referrals. They told us they always followed the guidance and their contractual agreements.

The practice had a 2 week wait referral procedure that had been updated in April 2024. There was also a referral’s policy, updated in March 2024. We saw the policies were followed. The practice carried out quarterly audits to ensure pathways were followed.

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