The Eston 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 people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating has remained 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.

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

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.

There were a range of clinical and non-clinical roles within the practice. There were 5 GPs, 2 Nurse Practitioners, 1 Practice Nurse, 1 Physician Associate, 1 Phlebotomist, and 2 Healthcare Assistants. The clinical staff were supported by the team of non-clinical roles, including the Practice Manager and Office Manager. The practice also had access to a variety of healthcare professionals via the Primary Care Network, such as a Dietitian, Health and Wellbeing Coach, Pharmacist, Learning Disability Co-ordinator and social prescribers amongst others. We found that training expectations had been clearly set out by practice leadership and included in practice policy. In addition, we saw that training was up to date and monitored by the practice leadership. Safe recruitment practices were followed. We saw evidence that staff roles were reviewed by the practice leadership to ensure the responsibilities of those roles received appropriate supervision and training. Staff managed emergency medicines well, and performed regular checks to ensure appropriate medicines were in stock and in date.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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