Stainland Road 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 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 practice detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Staff and managers completed health and safety risk assessments and undertook checks to ensure they had identified and addressed health and safety risks. For example, we saw that control measures such as fire alarm tests and routine evacuation drills had been undertaken in line with recognised fire safety requirements. The practice also had measures in place to ensure that premises and equipment were maintained and suitable for use. The practice had a business continuity plan which was regularly reviewed, and outlined how services would continue to be delivered in the event of a disruption.

The practice 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 practice employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included GPs, advanced nurse practitioners, nurses, and other health and care staff. We found staff operated within their agreed areas of competence, and that they were generally up to date with mandatory training. There were some minor gaps in training which we raised with the practice, and were told that these instances would be followed up. Effective induction support was in place for new staff including locums and GP registrars. At the time of our assessment, we saw that nursing team capacity was restricted. We saw that the practice was monitoring and managing this situation and had put in place measures to tackle this through additional recruitment, the use of agency staff, and the reprioritisation of other activities.

We saw that the practice had a clinical supervision policy and supporting processes in place for identified staff members such as non-medical prescribers and registrars. For example, clinical debriefing sessions were available for staff, and clinicians treating patients with complex needs could access support from a duty doctor, as well as having the opportunity to discuss challenging or complex cases at regular clinical meetings. Clinical audit, and the monitoring of prescribing gave the practice additional assurance of adherence to best practice guidelines. The practice followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, which was in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, reviews of qualifications, obtaining of professional references and undertaking checks on criminal records. Checks on staff immunisations and vaccinations showed that the practice did not have full assurance of staff status in this area, but we saw that some work had been undertaken in this area regarding Hepatitis B. The practice used a digital management platform to support human resources, and training compliance. This tool was also used to manage other areas of activity such as policy storage and review. In 2025 the practice had been given an award for small business of the year, by a local academic body, in recognition of their commitment to supporting apprenticeships and learning.

The practice 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 cleaning schedules and instructions available, which outlined how contractors and staff should clean and, when necessary, disinfect, the building and medical equipment. During our onsite visit, the practice premises and a sample of equipment were checked and found to be in an overall clean condition. The practice had an infection prevention and control (IPC) lead who ensured compliance with national guidance. We saw that measures to control risks included undertaking a regular legionella risk assessment, and implementing checks such as water temperature monitoring. The practice had an up to date IPC policy, and IPC checks were in place, though it was noted that the last formal IPC audit had been undertaken in November 2024 and was out of date. We were told that this was due to the need to prioritise nursing team capacity. When we discussed this with the practice, they told us that the audit would be undertaken immediately when capacity became available. Staff had completed relevant training in IPC, and the IPC lead had received additional training to support them in their role.

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