Greenmoss 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 looked for evidence people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The service had contracts to ensure the premises was maintained. There were comprehensive processes and documentation to demonstrate all equipment and property was serviced and maintained appropriately. Staff and leaders completed health and safety risk assessments and undertook audits to ensure they had identified and addressed all risks. The service had a business continuity plan which was regularly updated/reviewed and outlined how the service should continue to operate in the event of a disruption.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, however they did not aways make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development. Whilst there was evidence of support during MDT meetings there was no evidence of documented one to one supervised clinical reviews.

The service employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included GPs, nurses and pharmacists. Leaders did not always ensure staff were up to date with their training which the service had deemed mandatory but operated within their agreed areas of competence. Training was not monitored for all staff and not all mandatory training was appropriately assigned. The service did not always follow safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, in line with national legislation. Of the recruitment files we reviewed we found some were missing identity checks, review of qualifications, professional references and a criminal record check to the correct level. Since our assessment the practice has taken steps to resolve the issues we brought to their attention.

The service assessed and managed most of the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The service had cleaning schedules available, which outlined how staff should clean the building and its equipment. The service demonstrated how these were monitored for completion to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements. During our onsite visit, the service's premises and a sample of equipment reviewed was noted to be visibly clean. The service’s infection prevention and control lead conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance, but it was identified that not all areas of risk were being assessed. Clinical waste was not being correctly assessed and the correct documentation being retained. Since our assessment this has been resolved. Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control.

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