Marine Avenue 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 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 were maintained. Staff told us they had a regular team who they called upon to address any environmental issues or carry out necessary repairs.

Staff and leaders completed health and safety risk assessments and undertook audits to ensure they had identified and addressed most risks. However, we found staff had not followed up on 2 actions from the last audit in April 2026. These were minor and addressed immediately by the team.

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, a health care assistant and a physician associate. Leaders ensured the majority of staff were up to date with their training which the provider had deemed mandatory and operated within their agreed areas of competence. Any non-compliant staff updated their mandatory training following our visit.

The service is a training practice for post-graduate doctors entering general practice, including newly qualified doctors in their foundation training. It is also a teaching practice for medical students.

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 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 had cleaning schedules in place that outlined how staff should clean the premises and equipment. Managers had recently introduced a Quick Response Code (QR code) based cleaning system for clinical staff to record the cleaning of rooms and equipment. This simplified the recording of cleaning tasks for staff and enabled managers to track completion electronically and maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements. The system helped to ensure that cleaning tasks were undertaken and recorded consistently. 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 (IPC) lead conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance and took action where necessary to mitigate any identified risks. An action plan was in place to capture areas that need to be addressed. The treatment room we inspected did not have elbow operated taps and the sinks had overflows, presenting a potential IPC risk. The practice manager confirmed 2 newly refurbished rooms were compliant and the remaining clinical rooms had been risk assessed, with actions in progress to ensure compliance.

There was also a weekly walk around by the nurse lead, the practice manager and the office manager to oversee cleanliness and safety. 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.