St Saviours 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 had contracts to ensure the premises was maintained. Staff and leaders completed regular health and safety risk assessments and audits to identify, monitor, and mitigate potential risks. This included up-to-date legionella management and fire safety risk assessments. Records demonstrated that regular fire alarm testing and fire drills were undertaken. Portable compliance testing and calibrations were completed to ensure equipment remained safe and fit for purpose. Staff-only areas were fitted with lockable doors to restrict unauthorised access. During our inspection, we observed that these doors were not always secured. Following our feedback, leaders provided assurance that the locks were used when a GP was lone working within the premises to support staff safety and security. The service had a business continuity plan which was regularly reviewed and outlined how the service should continue to operate in the event of an emergency or significant 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.

Recruitment processes were in place to ensure appropriate numbers of suitably trained staff were employed in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining professional references and a criminal records check. There were a range of clinical and non-clinical roles within the practice, and all staff were working within their agreed areas of competence. They were a training practice and currently had 2 GP registrars in training. The service had good staff retention and had a history of previous registrars continuing to work at the practice. Processes were in place such as clinical supervision to ensure staff were delivering safe care. Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their mandatory training and enabled staff to complete additional training if this was of interest. For example, staff had attended safeguarding training through the primary care network that involved case study discussions. Annual staff appraisals were completed. Staff were given opportunities to learn and develop and were supported to do so. Staff feedback reflected they were happy within their roles and felt supported by their colleagues.

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 practice had designated an infection prevention and control (IPC) lead with oversight of IPC arrangements. Staff demonstrated an understanding of their roles and responsibilities in relation to IPC and had completed training appropriate to their role. Policies, procedures and cleaning schedules were in place to support effective infection prevention and control and promote a clean and safe environment for patients and staff. The practice undertook IPC risk assessments and audits to identify and monitor potential risks. Where areas for improvement were identified, action was taken to reduce or mitigate those risks. There were arrangements in place for clinical waste and sharps bin collections. We found the outside clinical waste bin was locked; however, it was not secured to a fixed structure to prevent unauthorised removal. Leaders acknowledged this and provided assurance that they would review the arrangements to ensure risks were appropriately managed. We reviewed the monthly meeting minutes which showed that IPC was a standing agenda item that supported the ongoing oversight and discussion of infection prevention and control matters.

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