Aston Healthcare Limited

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

The provider monitored and reviewed safety using information from a variety of sources. There was a system for recording and acting on significant events. However, in some cases, policies for a range of areas relating to the safe management of medicines lacked clarity as to the processes that staff should follow. We reviewed patients’ clinical records and found some patients were overdue monitoring, the practice was responsive and promptly acted on the concerns found through our clinical review of patient records.

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.

The patients we spoke with during our assessment did not give any comment regarding the learning culture at the practice.

Staff knew how to identify and report concerns, safety incidents and near misses. Staff understood how to raise concerns and report incidents both internally and externally. There was evidence of learning and dissemination of information.

The provider monitored and reviewed safety using information from a variety of sources. There was a system for recording and acting on significant events and safety alerts. Between January 2023 to March 2024 the provider recorded 60 events. We reviewed 16 events and found all had been investigated and learning shared with staff.

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.

Patient feedback about their experience of medicines prescribing and management at the practice was mixed.

We spoke with the clinical leads and the prescribing lead for Aston Healthcare Limited. The leaders were all aware of their roles and responsibilities surrounding medicines management. For example, the prescribing lead chaired a weekly clinical meeting, which all advanced nurse practitioners (ANPs), GPs (including locums), clinical pharmacy team (including technicians) and clerical staff were invited to attend. Clinical elements included discussion of cases and administrative areas such as processes that were not effective or not being followed.

The provider ensured medicines were stored safely and securely with access restricted to authorised staff. Blank prescriptions were kept securely, and their use monitored in line with national guidance. Staff had the appropriate authorisations to administer medicines including Patient Group Directions or Patient Specific Directions (written instructions to help you supply or administer medicines to patients). The provider held appropriate emergency medicines. Risk assessments were in place to determine the range of medicines held, and a system was in place to monitor stock levels and expiry dates. There was medical oxygen on site and systems to ensure this was regularly checked and fit for use. Vaccines were appropriately stored, monitored and transported in line with guidance to ensure they remained safe and effective.

There had been an improvement in the systems and processes within the service, however: The provider had policies for a range of areas relating to the safe management of medicines. In some cases, these lacked clarity as to the processes that staff should follow. Processes for how medicines related incident should be managed required more detail to support staff and leaders in the reporting, investigation and sharing of learning from incidents within the service. Sustainability and contingency planning was not in place for clinical leadership. Whilst there was effective leadership within medicines processes, this relied heavily on limited people. There was no policy or process for the management of patients misusing or withdrawing from medicines to which they are dependent. In most instances, the prescribing lead would manage these patients. This posed a risk in terms of contingency planning should the prescribing lead be on extended leave or leave the organisation.

We reviewed clinical records for patients who had been prescribed medicines which required routine monitoring. This included patients’ records who had been prescribed DMARDs (a disease modifying antirheumatic drug used to treat pain). Our review found 3 patient records had not been monitored and reviewed in line with current clinical guidelines. The searches of patients prescribed the high-risk drug Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or Angiotensin II receptor blocker (used to treat high blood pressure) identified 3 patients were overdue a blood monitoring test and weight measurement. The provider was responsive and promptly acted on the concerns found through our review of clinical records.