Westfield Road 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 staff protected people from avoidable harm and made sure care was delivered from environments that were clean and well maintained. 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 maintained a safe and well-organised environment, supported by effective arrangements and consistent processes. Routine safety checks of the premises were carried out, with electronic systems prompting scheduled activities such as fire safety, electrical testing, and alarm maintenance. Any issues identified were acted on promptly and resolved through established contractor arrangements.
There were clear processes in place to identify, manage, and learn from significant events and incidents. These were reviewed in regular team meetings, where staff discussed actions to reduce the risk of recurrence. For example, following a delay in reviewing an ECG result, improvements were introduced to ensure results were flagged and reviewed before clinicians left the premises.
Staff were supported through regular communication to understand their responsibilities and maintain safe practice. Risks were monitored effectively, enabling early identification and timely management.
The service also supported accessibility by making reasonable adjustments for patients who required additional assistance, including those with mobility needs. Staff provided support where required to ensure patients could access care safely.
Overall, the service maintained a safe environment through organised arrangements, responsive processes, and effective oversight.
 

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 ensured staff were appropriately trained and supported to deliver safe care. Mandatory training was clearly defined and monitored through an electronic system, with automated reminders used to maintain compliance. Staff were given protected learning time to complete training, and overall compliance levels were high.
Robust recruitment processes were in place to ensure staff were suitable for their roles. This included appropriate pre-employment checks such as Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, verification of identity, employment history, and professional registration where required. Regular audits of staff files confirmed that recruitment records were complete, accurate, and in line with current legislation and best practice.
Daily huddles and regular multidisciplinary meetings supported communication and coordination across the team. These provided opportunities to review risks, discuss patient care, and raise safeguarding concerns, helping staff to make informed decisions.
Staff felt supported in their roles and understood the importance of working within their competence. They were confident to seek advice and escalate concerns where needed. Non-clinical staff were able to recognise when patients required urgent review and ensured timely escalation. Safeguarding processes were clearly understood across the service.
Staff worked flexibly to maintain service delivery during periods of increased demand or absence. Additional support was available through bank staff and regular locums who were familiar with the service. An open culture allowed staff to raise concerns, with clear escalation routes in place. This supported a responsive and supportive working environment.
 

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.
Infection prevention and control (IPC) arrangements were effective and consistently applied across the service. Regular team discussions supported shared understanding and reinforced safe practices.
Monitoring systems ensured clinical areas, equipment, and vaccine storage were routinely checked. Scheduled checks were supported by electronic alerts, helping staff maintain compliance. Staff followed established procedures, including hand hygiene, use of personal protective equipment, and cleaning protocols, with records maintained for assurance.

The service undertook regular IPC audits to assess compliance with standards and identify areas for improvement. Audit findings were reviewed, and where issues were identified, appropriate actions were implemented promptly. There was evidence of learning and improvements being made as a result, with outcomes shared across the team to support ongoing good practice.
Clear processes were in place to manage patients with infectious conditions. This included adapting patient flow, using appropriate protective measures, and implementing additional precautions during higher-risk periods. Reception staff supported this by identifying potentially unwell patients early and ensuring they were managed safely.

Staff understood how to identify and respond to IPC risks. Concerns were reported promptly and addressed without delay, with learning shared across the team to support improvement.
Compliance with IPC training was monitored through electronic systems, and regular updates ensured staff remained informed of best practice.
This ensured IPC was fully embedded across the service, supported by effective leadership, clear systems, and regular monitoring, contributing to a safe and well-managed environment for patients and staff. 
 

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