Ouse Valley 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 was maintained. Staff and leaders completed health and safety risk assessments and undertook audits to ensure they had identified and addressed all risks. For example, the service conducted a fire risk assessment in April 2026 and created an action log with a monthly review. All required actions had been completed. Fire drills were performed regularly, and staff were trained on fire safety. Equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The service had a business continuity plan. This was regularly reviewed and outlined how the service should continue to operate in the event of a 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 followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, which was in line with national legislation. This involved identity checks, qualification reviews, professional references, and a criminal records check.

The service employed staff in a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included GPs, nurses and pharmacists alongside staff in associated roles funded by the primary care network, such as a social prescriber and early cancer nurse who had a focus on early diagnosis, screening and prevention. Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their training which the service had deemed mandatory and worked within their agreed areas of competence.

Staff praised the quality of clinical support available from colleagues and described this as well organised with clinical meetings held 3 times per month and additional protected learning time sessions. Supervision arrangements were in place and staff confirmed they received meaningful clinical supervision and engagement with colleagues which was documented. The service had measures in place to promote staff wellbeing and made reasonable adjustments to working arrangements as required, for example, flexibility with working patterns for staff.

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’s infection prevention and control lead conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance (including handwashing audits) and took action to mitigate any identified risks. For example, they had identified the assessment of people attending who could pose an infection risk to others as an area for further work. Measures to address this risk were under review at the time of our assessment. Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control.

Antibiotic prescribing was monitored. Clinical staff were aware of the process to report notifiable communicable diseases. At the time of our assessment, the service was in the process of setting up a suitable isolation area if people needed to be isolated from other people due to an infection risk.

The service had cleaning schedules available, which outlined how the contract cleaning team should clean the building and its equipment. The service demonstrated how these were monitored to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements. During our onsite visit, we observed the premises and a sample of equipment to be visibly clean.

However, the service was not yet publicly displaying information about its commitment to cleanliness in line with recent guidance and there was no written aseptic protocol in relation to the coil-fitting service. An aseptic protocol isa set of rules used to prevent cross contamination and infection from spreading. The service told us it had addressed these issues following the assessment.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences in line with national guidance. The service delivered good medicines optimisation by mostly embedding robust, proactive safety reviews that ensured people received evidence-based, clinically effective, and safe prescribing.

Medicines were stored, prescribed, administered and monitored safely, in line with current best practice. This included emergency medicines, controlled drugs, medical gases and vaccines. We conducted a remote review of clinical records and found prescribing data and medicines governance processes provided assurance that medicines were managed effectively. Staff received regular training and competency assessments in medicines optimisation. People were actively involved in decisions about their medicines through regular reviews and were provided information to help them understand how to manage their medicines safely. Clinical searches undertaken by a CQC clinician showed that people received appropriate monitoring in line with national guidance and effective systems were in place to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls. For example, we found that the service was completing required blood monitoring when prescribing disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). DMARDs are a group of medicines typically used to treat certain autoimmune conditions like rheumatoid arthritis. We also found that the service was prescribing teratogenic medicines safely. Teratogenic medicines can disrupt normal fetal development if taken during pregnancy.

Prescribing data reviewed as part of our assessment demonstrated appropriate antimicrobial stewardship, as the number of antimicrobials issued by the provider was lower than local and national averages. The service had a programme of regular clinical prescribing audits that focused on improving care and treatment, for example covering antibiotic prescribing and the prescribing of controlled medicines.

The service operated a medicines dispensary, which meant people living within a certain distance of the service could collect their medicines from the service or have them delivered via a local delivery service. Dispensary staff received appropriate training for their role and followed suitable processes when preparing and dispensing medicines. Governance processes supported the safe and effective operation of the dispensary.