Meadow 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 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 72 (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 premises and equipment were maintained (including fire alarm, firefighting equipment and medical devices).

Staff and leaders completed periodic health and safety risk assessments and undertook audits to ensure they had identified and addressed all risks. 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.

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, clinical pharmacist and phlebotomist (a healthcare professional trained to draw and prepare blood samples for medical testing). Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their training which the service had deemed mandatory and operated within their agreed areas of competence. The service followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, which were in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining of professional references and a criminal records check.

The service did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

During our onsite visit, the service's premises and a sample of equipment reviewed was noted to be visibly clean. Cleaning materials and equipment were appropriately stored (along with guidelines for the safe handling and storing of hazardous cleaning products). However, the service did not have cleaning schedules available, outlining how staff should clean the building and its equipment. We were told that these would immediately be introduced. The service’s infection prevention and control lead conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance. We noted that some actions to mitigate risks were recorded. However, we identified three damaged chairs in reception and were advised that these were in the process of being replaced.

Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control (IPC). Periodic water sample testing took place to determine the presence of Legionella (a bacteria which can proliferate in building water systems). However, water temperature monitoring was not taking place (as per the recommendations of the provider’s latest Legionella risk assessment). The provider told us monitoring would immediately commence and shortly after our inspection we were also sent confirmation that a June 2026 Legionella risk assessment had been booked.

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