Pringle Street 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

We looked for evidence that staff protected people from avoidable harm and made sure care was delivered from environments that were clean and well maintained. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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.

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. Staff and leaders completed health and safety risk assessments, and any issues that were identified were immediately rectified. All staff were trained in aspects of fire safety and health and safety. The service had a business continuity plan which was regularly 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, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The service had 3 GP partners. It was also a training practice for qualified doctors. It employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included a nurse and a healthcare assistant. There was a clinical pharmacist and mental health practitioner linked to the practice. Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their training which the service had deemed mandatory and operated within their agreed areas of competence. Protected learning time was available for all staff. The service followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, which were in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining of professional references and a criminal records check. All staff received annual appraisals, and new staff completed an induction programme relevant to their role.

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

During our onsite visit, the service's premises and a sample of equipment reviewed was noted to be visibly clean. The service had co-infection control leads, a GP partner and the practice nurse. They conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance and took action where necessary to mitigate any identified risks. Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control. The service had a cleaning contractor and demonstrated how cleaning was monitored for completion to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements. The vaccination status of clinical and non-clinical staff was recorded.

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