Seaton and Colyton Medical Practice

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 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. Health and safety and fire risk assessments had been undertaken and risks identified had been addressed. Fire equipment checks were documented. Electrical equipment was tested to ensure it was safe to use, and the equipment was calibrated for accuracy.

The service had a health and safety policy and a business continuity plan detailing what actions to take in the event of an incident which would affect the running of the service.

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.

There was a range of clinical and non-clinical roles in the service. Staff had regular appraisals to discuss their performance and learning needs. Staff were upskilled to support the service and their professional development. For example, the service supported a secretary in pursuing training as a nursing associate and their operations manager to study an apprenticeship in management.

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 explored with each staff member before they started work if they required any reasonable adjustments for their work and conducted risk assessment as appropriate. During our visit, we reviewed a sample of a detailed plan of reasonable adjustment tailored for a staff member’s health condition. However, there was no formal documentation of checking when the staff did not have additional needs. Following the assessment, the service developed a pre-employment health questionnaire to ensure formal documentation was completed for all staff as part of the pre-employment checks.

Most staff were up-to-date with their training, which the service had deemed mandatory. The service developed an action plan to ensure the remaining staff would complete all mandatory training within 3 weeks.

Leaders ensured staff operated within their agreed areas of competence. Staff could explain the process of clinical competency checks. However, evidence of the competency check was not consistently documented. Following the assessment, the service developed a set of clinical competency checklists to promote consistent documentation.

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 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 visit, the service's premises was visibly clean and tidy. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available to staff and there were hand-washing facilities in all clinical areas. Sharps waste bins used for disposing of used medical instruments such as needles or syringes were safely managed. Clinical waste bins were locked in a secure area to avoid unauthorised use or removal.

Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control (IPC). The service’s IPC lead conducted regular IPC audits to ensure compliance and took actions where necessary to mitigate any identified risks. During our visit, we noted that fabric chairs were used by clinicians in clinical rooms, which presented a potential infection control risk, without a relevant risk assessment. Their IPC policy covered guidance on managing contaminated soft furnishings and the cleaning contractors had a process for cleaning fabric clinical seating. Following the assessment, the service carried out a risk assessment and decided to implement a schedule for replacement of the fabric chairs with wipeable chairs to reduce the IPC risk.

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