Port View 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 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.

Leaders ensured equipment was portable appliance tested (PAT tested), calibrated appropriately and maintained records to support oversight. The service held contracts with external organisations to keep the premises, including external areas, clean and well maintained.
Staff and leaders completed health and safety risk assessments and carried out audits to identify and address risks. Fire safety arrangements were in place, including trained fire marshals, regular checks and fire drills. The service had a business continuity plan, which was regularly reviewed and set out how the service would continue to operate in the event of 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.
The service employed a range of clinical and non-clinical staff, including GPs, an advanced care practitioner, nurses and healthcare assistants. The service followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff. This included identity checks, reviews of qualifications, professional references and criminal records checks. Staff received an induction tailored to their role. However, the service had not always recorded information about staff physical and mental health to show it had assessed whether they were fit to carry out their roles safely. Following the site visit, leaders provided additional information to demonstrate this was being followed up.

Leaders ensured staff were up-to-date with training, such as safeguarding, which the service had identified as mandatory. Staff worked within their agreed areas of competence and received competency assessments and clinical supervision. Staff received appraisals and there was a process to record performance-related discussions. The service recorded and maintained oversight of staff professional registration.
The service took steps to ensure staffing levels remained appropriate to its needs. For example, it recruited an additional patient advisor when an existing staff member took on new duties.
 

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, which set out how premises and equipment should be cleaned. Leaders maintained and oversaw the cleaning arrangements. Staff managed clinical waste, sharps and clinical specimens in line with the service’s arrangements and understood these processes. During our on-site visit, we observed that the premises were visibly clean and well maintained.
The service had infection prevention and control (IPC) policies and processes. Staff were up-to-date with IPC training. There was an IPC lead who carried out risk assessments and audits, including an annual IPC audit and hand hygiene audits, to monitor compliance. Where action was identified, such as the need for additional personal protective equipment, this had been taken. However, of the 4 staff files reviewed, 2 did not show records of recommended staff vaccinations. Following the site visit, the service provided additional evidence to show action was being taken 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.