Dr Telesilla Gueret Wardle Also known as The Christchurch Hall 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, we focused on 3 quality statements relating to the key question Safe: Safe environments, Safe and effective staffing and Infection prevention and control.

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 practice detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. It made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The practice had arrangements 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 all risks.

Potential risks in the care environment were well-managed. The premises were 2 storeys, with 5 consultation rooms.

We saw evidence that regular premises checks and risk assessments were carried out. We noted these were done by practice staff. They included a fire safety risk assessment in April 2026, coinciding with the practice’s fire extinguishers being inspected and certified by a specialist contractor, and a general premises risk assessment in May 2026. We saw records confirming regular fire alarm testing was carried out and that fire drills were conducted. Medical equipment had been inspected and calibrated in August 2025, with the 2026 inspection booked for shortly after our site visit. Portable appliance safety testing (PAT) had been completed in September 2025, and a fixed wiring inspection was conducted in July 2026. A gas safety inspection was carried out in March 2026. On the day of our site visit we saw evidence that an independent specialist contractor had been appointed to conduct future fire risk assessments.

The practice had up to date policies covering health, safety and welfare. We saw evidence of staff completing mandatory safety training appropriate to the roles and responsibilities.

The practice had a detailed business continuity plan which was reviewed annually, most recently in December 2025, and outlined how the service would continue to operate in the event of a disruption, including an option to temporarily relocate to a buddy practice nearby.

The practice 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 practice’s clinical team was comprised of the provider, 4 long-term locum GPs, and a nurse practitioner. The practice employed 2 clinical pharmacists, who worked remotely. A prescriber pharmacist and a social prescriber, employed by the Primary Care Network (PCN) and shared with the other PCN practices, also worked some sessions. A locum pack provided locum staff with information regarding the practice’s working processes and governance, together with local procedures.

Leaders ensured staff were up to date with training which was deemed mandatory and that they operated within their agreed areas of competence. From our review of staff records, we saw the practice followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, which were in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, a review of qualifications, obtaining references and a criminal records (DBS) check. New staff were subject to a probationary period of six months, and we saw evidence that annual appraisals were carried out. DBS checks were repeated every 3 years. We saw evidence of staff receiving annual appraisals, monitoring any training and development needs.

The practice had appropriate equipment and medicines for use in medical emergencies. These included an oxygen supply, with suitable fittings for children, and a portable defibrillator. We saw evidence confirming staff regularly checked the equipment and medicines. Staff had up to date training in resuscitation, basic life support and sepsis awareness.

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

The practice had logs and daily checklists demonstrating how the premises and equipment were cleaned. At our onsite visit, the premises and equipment were visibly clean. The provider was the clinical lead for infection prevention and control. Cleaning was carried out by a contractor. Delegated named staff conducted regular checks to ensure compliance and acted where necessary to mitigate any identified risks. Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control appropriate to their roles and responsibilities. There were arrangements in place for the management of clinical waste and there were suitable procedures for specimen collection and handling.

Staff had carried out a legionella risk assessment and maintained records confirming they conducted the recommended weekly water temperature testing and flushing. On the day of our site visit we saw evidence that an independent specialist contractor had been appointed to conduct future legionella risk assessments, which would include water sampling and laboratory analysis.

Records were maintained and monitored to ensure staff were up to date with necessary immunisations.

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