Alderley Edge Medical Practice

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 69 (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 did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, and facilities supported the delivery of safe care.

Although the majority of safety checks of the premises and equipment had taken place. Improvements were needed to the checks of fire safety. The fire risk assessment at the Prestbury Medical Practice (completed June 2025) had identified some moderate and substantial fire safety risks. Some of these risks had been addressed, some were scheduled to be completed as part of the extension and reconfiguration works to the building in the next 6 months. However, action to test the emergency lighting monthly and an emergency lighting service check had not been completed at the time of this assessment. In-house checks of the fire alarm were not carried out weekly on a consistent basis at either site. Following the assessment the provider told us how this was being addressed.

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.

Checks of emergency equipment and medicines were carried out. However, emergency equipment was checked monthly and should be weekly in accordance with NICE guidelines. The emergency medicines risk assessment did not indicate why some of the medicines on the suggested list were not required. The medical oxygen was not secured to prevent it falling over. The oxygen was secured following the assessment.

There were a few dates when the daily check of the vaccine’s fridge had not been recorded at the Prestbury Medical Practice. The vaccine fridge was also not lockable at this site and was in a room accessible to other regulated services. A lock was put in place following the assessment and a system to monitor that daily checks were taking place.

The service made sure there were enough staff in differing roles to meet the needs of patients. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. However, the provider did not consistently have records of staff training and recruitment to demonstrate safe practices.

The service employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included GPs, nurses and health care assistants. Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their training which the service had deemed mandatory and operated within their agreed areas of competence. Although they had access to guidance, the non-clinical staff had not completed sepsis training. Action to address this was taken following the assessment. Evidence of the completion training in a specific procedure was not held at the practice for a member of staff who completed this over several years ago. Following the assessment action was taken to address this.

The service followed safe recruitment procedures overall when employing staff. This included identity checks, review of qualifications and a criminal records check. The system to monitor recruitment records to ensure employment history was consistently obtained needed improvement.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection and had a process to share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

During our onsite visit, a sample of the service's premises and a sample of the equipment we reviewed was noted to be visibly clean. The service had cleaning schedules available, which outlined how staff should clean the building and its equipment.

The service’s infection prevention and control lead conducted regular audits of the premises and hand hygiene to ensure compliance and took action where necessary to mitigate any identified risks. The checks that took place between the annual premises audits were not recorded. Improvements to infection prevention and control were identified at the Prestbury Medical Practice, for example, there was limited storage for equipment, which will be addressed by the improvements planned to these premises.

Personal protective equipment was in sufficient supply and located appropriately around the premises. 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.