Dr Laurence Howard Sherman Also known as Greyland 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 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 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 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 undertook audits to ensure they had identified and addressed all risks to patients.

Some areas that were only accessible to staff had potential hazards to health and safety and require repair and renovation. For example, old torn carpets presenting a trip hazard, or crumbling plaster in parts of the room used for training. However the practice stated are plans to address this and carry out works to the building. 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 employed a GP and a nurse in clinical roles. Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their training which the service had deemed mandatory and operated within their agreed areas of competence.

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.

However, some documents were not available or were missing at the time of our inspection, and the system of recording training and staff documentation required improvement. For example we looked at 5 staff HR files. There was missing ID records and right to work in the UK evidence for all 5, no signed contracts or job descriptions available and several other pieces of information not stored correctly. The practice plans to move to an online system which may address some of these concerns, but had not done so at the time of our visit.
 

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. Cleaning staff were employed directly by the practice. 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 and took action where necessary to mitigate any identified risks. 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.