Dr's H.C. Ash, K.A. Harris & J.E. Hirst Also known as Dearne Valley Health 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 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 remains the same.

This service scored 72 (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. Equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The practice had arrangements in place to ensure the premises were secure and well maintained. Staff and leaders completed health and safety risk assessments and undertook audits to ensure they had identified and addressed all risks. A business continuity plan was in place, this was regularly reviewed and outlined how the service should continue to operate in the event of a disruption.

The practice made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The practice employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included GPs, a trainee GP assistant, nurses and a nurse associate. Staff were generally up to date with their training which the practice had deemed mandatory, although there were some gaps, for example training on the mental capacity act (MCA) for clinicians. Staff were aware of action to take in an emergency, but training records did not demonstrate that sepsis training had been completed. Leaders told us this had been covered in a practice training session and would update their records to reflect this. Staff operated within their agreed areas of competence. The service generally followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining of professional references and a criminal records check. There was a gap in recruitment records for one member of staff, however, immediately following the inspection the practice provided this information.

The practice did not always assess and manage the risk of infection.

During our onsite visit we found the premises were visibly clean. However, there were no formal cleaning schedules in place, which outlined how staff should clean the building. The practice’s infection prevention and control lead conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance and took action where necessary to mitigate any identified risks. Arrangements for managing waste, sharps and clinical specimens were in place. All staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control. However, there was no clear oversight of all staff’s immunisation status. The practice advised they would take action to address this.

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