Kingsbridge 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 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 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 regularly reviewed and outlined how the service should continue to operate in the event of a disruption. Systems were in place to maintain the security of prescription stationery. However, the system for tracking prescription stationery required improvement. Following our assessment the provider sent us their updated process for security and tracking prescription stationery throughout the practice.

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, and nurse associates. In addition, the service utilised staff employed through their local Primary Care Network, providing a broader range of services to people. These included advanced nurse practitioners, social prescribers, mental health facilitators, first contact physiotherapists and pharmacists. They worked well together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their training which the service had deemed mandatory and operated within their agreed areas of competence. Non-medical prescribers, locum staff and trainee GPs received clinical supervision and debrief sessions. Staff, with the exception of salaried GPs, received an annual appraisal.

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 provider had recently secured occupational health services, who assessed newly employed staff in respect of their physical and mental health, immunisation status and fitness to work. Any recommendations made were followed up by the practice.

The service generally assessed and managed the risk of infection. They mostly detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control.

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 6 monthly IPC risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance and took action where necessary to mitigate any identified risks. An action plan had been developed to capture areas that needed to be addressed. The IPC audit had not identified overflows in sinks with overflows as a potential IPC risk. Following our assessment the provider sent us details of how this risk would be managed. Hand hygiene audits were also completed, and staff reported the IPC lead was focused on ensuring effective hand-washing techniques. We noted cleaning staff were not following their own guidelines with regard to colour coded buckets for different areas of the building, as not all required coloured buckets were available. Following our assessment the provider evidence that all required colour coded buckets were now in place.

The provider was not able to demonstrate staff vaccinations were maintained in line with current UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) guidance relevant to their role. Risk assessments had not been completed when vaccination records were incomplete. Following our assessment the provider sent us their updated health declaration and immunisation form, and risk assessment.

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