Priory Medical 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 to ensure the premises were maintained. Staff and leaders completed health and safety risk assessments and undertook audits to ensure they had identified and addressed all risks. For example, fire safety and legionella. Appropriate testing of equipment had been completed.

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.

CCTV was in place in communal areas to enhance safety and security, and its use was clearly governed by policies to ensure people’s privacy and dignity were respected.

Staff we spoke with were aware of the fire evacuation procedures and were able to describe their roles and responsibilities in the event of a fire. However, not all staff were up-to-date with mandatory fire safety training, and some staff we spoke to were unclear about who the designated fire marshals were within the service.

Blank prescriptions were stored securely. However, systems for tracking prescription stationery throughout the service were not in place. Following our feedback the service sent us their updated protocol for tracking prescription stationery throughout the service and evidence of how this was recorded.

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 roles, which included GPs, nurses, paramedics, physiotherapists and pharmacy technicians. Leaders had oversight of staff training, and ensured staff operated within their agreed areas of competence. Staff were mostly up-to-date with training which the service had deemed mandatory.

Clinical staff undertaking training programmes were receiving regular supervision. There was a formal system of supervision in place for staff.

The service had a recruitment policy and followed safe recruitment processes in line with national legislation when employing staff. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining of professional references and a criminal records check.

However, during a review of a sample of staff records, we found that the service had not demonstrated that they had fully completed these checks. Records did not always contain a full immunisation history or a documented risk assessment relating to staff vaccinations against potential healthcare-acquired infections. There were also some gaps in obtaining professional references and checks of qualifications for some staff. The service responded promptly to our feedback by reviewing the staff records identified and providing further assurance that the gaps had been addressed, both for the individuals concerned and across the wider workforce.

Staff worked well together to provide safe care that met people’s needs, and staff worked within their areas of competence.

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. The service demonstrated how these were monitored for completion to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements. During our onsite visit, the service's premises and a sample of equipment reviewed was noted to be visibly clean.

The service had a designated infection prevention and control (IPC) lead who conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance and took action where necessary to mitigate any identified risks.

Staff we spoke with were aware of the IPC processes and were able to describe their roles and responsibilities in relation to this. However, not all staff were up-to-date with mandatory IPC training.

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