Asplands 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 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. People received care in premises that were safe, maintained and regularly monitored. The service had systems in place for premises, equipment and emergency equipment checks. These included gas safety and fire safety checks. Checks on equipment included the air conditioning in the buildings, to ensure they operated effectively and were safe. Responsibilities were delegated to specific members of staff, and checks were recorded and monitored centrally through an electronic dashboard system. Where issues were identified, these were escalated to the practice manager or GP partners, and action was taken to ensure a safe working environment.

Both premises were accessible, appropriate and well‑designed to meet the needs of all people, including those from vulnerable groups. Any environmental or accessibility concerns were promptly identified and addressed, with clear escalation processes in place to involve senior staff or GP partners. This ensured that safe and consistent care was maintained across both sites.

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.

Senior staff explained that when new or temporary staff were recruited, comprehensive induction and competency checks were completed. These included identity verification, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, confirmation of professional registration, and assessment of competence. (A DBS check allows employers to review an individual’s criminal record to ensure they are suitable for their role).

Where possible, staff worked across both sites to promote consistency in service and ensure adherence to systems and processes, such as reporting environmental concerns. Staffing levels and skill mix were regularly reviewed and adjusted in response to sickness, annual leave and changes in demand, which helped to maintain patient safety. The service also adapted appointment types by increasing availability for minor illness consultations and offering longer appointments for people who required additional time. The nursing rota was managed centrally, which allowed staff to be redeployed between sites during periods of increased pressure. For example, when one site experienced higher demand, nurses were able to travel between locations to maintain appointment availability and continuity of care.

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. Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control.

Infection prevention and control (IPC) arrangements were organised and applied across both sites. The service completed a comprehensive annual IPC audit using a standardised template provided by the local Infection Control Team. Audits were undertaken at both premises and reviewed centrally to support consistency and oversight by leaders.

Findings from IPC audits were shared with staff at clinical governance meetings and discussed with the practice manager to agree actions and timescales to ensure risk of harm was minimised and safety was maintained. These actions were monitored and followed up through ongoing audits to ensure improvements were sustained.

The service completed ongoing audits, which included hand hygiene audits for all staff. IPC policies, audit outcomes and supporting documents were accessible to staff via the service’s central system. Key documents were also held in shared drives on computers or paper format where real‑time use was required. This ensured staff could readily access guidance and apply it in service.

Senior nursing staff worked across both sites, to provide clinical oversight. Where an IPC issue arose at one site, the risk was assessed and checks were carried out at the second site either immediately or at the next appropriate opportunity, depending on the level of risk identified. Nursing staff were allocated protected time to complete these checks and implement any required actions.

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