Binbrook 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 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 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 in place to ensure the premises was maintained. Staff and leaders completed health and safety risk assessments and undertook audits to ensure they had identified and addressed risks. This included fire and legionella risk assessments undertaken by an external contractor. Appropriate monitoring arrangements were in place to address any legionella associated risks. We saw evidence that regular fire drills had been undertaken and any identified actions had been taken. Staff had completed relevant fire and health and safety training.

The service had a business continuity plan which was regularly reviewed and updated and outlined their contingency plans for operating the practice in the event of a disruption.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The service employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included GPs, an advanced nurse practitioner, practice nurses and health care assistants. They were also supported by a mental health practitioner, a care co-ordinator and a pharmacy technician who were not directly employed by 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. Staff were supported to develop and were positive about the training and development opportunities available. We found that staff had received regular appraisals.

The service followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, which was in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining of professional references and a criminal records check. Processes had been established to ensure staff working for, but not directly employed by the practice, were recruited safely, had received appropriate and up to date training and were working within their agreed areas of competence.

We saw that clinical supervision was taking place, but this was not always formally recorded. The provider changed their policy during our assessment to ensure that going forward there was a formal record of supervision.

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.

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, premises and equipment which were reviewed, were observed to be visibly clean. The service’s infection prevention and control lead conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance. Monthly and annual audits were undertaken, and we saw evidence that following the most recent audit an action plan was in place and identified risks being monitored and actioned. Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control.

We saw the practice held relevant information relating to the immunisation status for staff.

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