Essington Medical 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 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 69 (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 mostly 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 was maintained. Staff and leaders completed health and safety risk assessments and undertook audits to ensure they had identified and addressed all risks. However, we found that not all potential risks had been identified and assessed. For example, window blind cords which posed a potential strangulation hazard. Following our assessment the provider sent us an action plan which detailed how the risk would be managed. In addition, we found that the vaccine refrigerator had not been calibrated, although it had been portable appliance (PAT) tested. Following our assessment the provider confirmed the date for the calibration of the vaccine refrigerator.

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. Systems were not in place to maintain the security of or for tracking prescription stationery throughout the practice. Following our assessment the provider sent us their updated process for prescription management and tracking.

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, nurse practitioners and nurses. In addition, the service utilised staff employed through their local Primary Care Network, providing a broader range of services to people. These included social prescribers, care co-ordinators, paramedics and pharmacists. They worked well together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their training which the service had deemed mandatory and operated within their agreed areas of competence. Staff told us they received support, supervision and learning and development opportunities. Non-medical prescribers and salaried GPs received clinical supervision, which included oversight of prescribing, every 3 months. The service followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, which was in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining of professional references and a criminal records check.

The service generally assessed and managed the risk of infection, although some improvements were required to detecting and controlling potential risks in the care environment.

During our onsite visit, the service's premises and a sample of equipment reviewed was noted to be visibly clean. The service had cleaning schedules available, which outlined how staff should clean the building and its equipment, although these were not available in all consulting rooms. The IPC lead and practice manager carried out risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance. However, several risks had not been identified or action taken to mitigate the risk. For example, the communal carpeted area and storage of used sharps bins in an insecure area. Following our assessment the provider sent us the updated process for the storage of sharps bins and confirmed the carpet would be deep cleaned and added to the routine cleaning schedule. Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control.

The provider was aware that staff vaccination needed to be maintained in line with current UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) guidance if relevant to their role. However, records demonstrated that risk assessments had not been completed when vaccination records were incomplete. Following our assessment the provider sent evidence of completed risk assessments.

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