Queslett Medical Centre Also known as Queslett 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, 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 made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care but had not always detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment.

Leaders told us the building was now owned by the provider and no longer leased. Staff and leaders completed health and safety risk assessments and undertook audits to ensure they had identified and addressed most risks. 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.

During our site visit, we observed care navigators were unable to gain access to the reception office after exiting, resulting in them being locked out of the room. The provider confirmed they would review and address this to mitigate associated risks.

Appropriate systems were in place for safe storage and handling of blank prescription stationery, and the provider had effective systems to manage and respond to safety and medicine alerts.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. The service had a stable workforce who worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. The service had a staff recruitment policy in place; however, we found they were not working fully in line with the policy. Recruitment procedures had not always been fully implemented as not all relevant pre-recruitment checks had been carried out for new staff employed. However, following our site visit additional information was shared with us and action taken to ensure safe recruitment processes going forward.

The service employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included GPs, practice nurses, and a pharmacist. Staff told us they were provided with good training and development opportunities. Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their mandatory training and maintained an overview of training completed on an electronic training record. However, we found 1 member of staff’s training records was not readily available as the training record were maintained at another local GP practice where they were also employed. These records were later shared with us following our site visit.

Annual appraisals were available on the staff records sampled. However, these were not signed and dated by either party to indicate an accurate record of discussions held. The provider agreed to action this going forward.

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, however these were not signed. Clinical staff told us equipment was single use and they were responsible for cleaning clinical areas in between patient consultations and at the end of each session. During our site visit, we found the premises and equipment sampled visibly clean. The service’s infection prevention and control (IPC) lead carried out regular risk assessments and IPC audits to ensure compliance and took action where necessary to mitigate any identified risks. Staff had completed IPC relevant training.

We found a metal waste bin in the sluice room with visible signs of rust on the lid. This had not been recorded as part of the IPC audit. Following our site visit the provider confirmed the bin had since been replaced.

The practice IPC lead had carried out an infection prevention and control (IPC) audit in April 2026 scoring 96%, 2 minor areas had been identified. An action plan had been completed to address the minor issues identified however, no specific date for action or responsible person had been recorded. Following our site visit the provider updated the action plan.

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