The Tollesbury Practice Also known as Darcy 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 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. The service had a business continuity plan which was reviewed regularly 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, dispensers and a social prescriber. 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 spoken with confirmed this. The service had a low staff turnover, when recruitment took place, the service followed a safe recruitment procedure which was in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining of professional references and a criminal records check. Checks of the professional registration status of clinical staff were undertaken at the point of recruitment and kept under review.

The service had cleaning schedules available, which outlined how staff should clean the building and its equipment. The service demonstrated how these were monitored for completion to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements. During our onsite visit, the service's premises and a sample of equipment reviewed was noted to be visibly clean. The service’s infection prevention and control lead conducted monthly oversight risk assessments, and the service had introduced an annual audit to ensure compliance and took action where necessary to mitigate any identified risks. The practice worked with partner agencies to help ensure oversight and management of infection and had taken action to address recommendations made. For example, they had fitted new washable flooring in the waiting area, hallways and treatment rooms, and added personal protective equipment storage to the wall in treatment rooms. Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control.

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