Hadleigh Boxford Group Practice

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.

The service had contracts, and completed ongoing checks, to ensure the premises were maintained. These included for example, fire, electrical and water safety and equipment calibration. A health and safety risk assessment had been completed and identified actions had been completed and risks addressed or were in progress. Staff we spoke with had no concerns about the health and safety and fire arrangements in place. 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. Feedback from people and care home representatives was positive, particularly regarding the knowledge, skill, care and treatment provided by clinical staff, as well as the helpfulness of non-clinical staff.

The service had an appropriate mix of clinical and non-clinical staff, which included GPs, nurses, paramedics and pharmacists. Safe recruitment procedures were followed when employing staff, which were in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining of professional references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. Checks of the professional registration of clinical staff were made at recruitment and on an ongoing basis. We reviewed a sample of staff immunisation records and found the service held the relevant information relating to the immunisation status for staff.

Effective arrangements were in place for staff induction. We reviewed the training records of a sample of staff and although training had been completed or was booked, the provider acknowledged the oversight of this could be more effective.

Clinicians we spoke with told us they were supported to undertake their roles, could easily obtain advice from a GP and worked within their agreed areas of competence. Arrangements were in place for the oversight of staff working in extended clinical roles, which included those who prescribed medicines.

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. People we received feedback from gave positive feedback or had no concerns about the cleanliness of the service. Care home representatives gave positive feedback about the infection prevention and control (IPC) arrangements followed by visiting clinicians from the service.

The service had cleaning schedules available, which outlined how staff should clean the building and its equipment. The service demonstrated how these were monitored for completion to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements. Staff we spoke with were satisfied with the IPC arrangements in place.

The service’s IPC lead, with support from other staff, conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance. We reviewed the most recent IPC audit and found most actions identified to mitigate risks had been completed. 1 action was awaiting discussion which we raised with the provider. In response, they submitted a risk assessment the day after the site visit. During our onsite visit, the premises and a sample of equipment reviewed were noted to be visibly clean. Staff had completed relevant training in IPC, which included a specific IPC induction. Appropriate arrangements were in place to manage clinical waste, however although the clinical waste bins were locked, they were not secured. The provider confirmed these had been secured the morning after the site visit.

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