Mount Road 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 69 (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. However, we found that not all potential risks had been identified and assessed. For example, window blind cords which posed a potential strangulation hazard. Following our assessment the provider sent us a risk assessment which detailed how the risk would be managed.

The service had a business continuity plan which was regularly 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 of prescription pads and stationery required improvement. Following our assessment the provider sent us updated log sheets for tracking prescription pads, and an updated process for managing prescription stationery in the printer.

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, nurse practitioners and nurses. In addition, the service utilised staff employed through their local Primary Care Network, providing a broader range of services to people. These included social prescribers, mental health facilitators, first contact physiotherapists, paramedics 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. Staff told us they received support, supervision and learning and development opportunities. Non-medical prescribers received clinical supervision although this was not always documented. The provider told us they would introduce a similar clinical supervision process used for the trainee GPs for non-clinical prescribers. Regular audits of non-medical prescribing were carried out.

The service followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, which was in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining of professional references and a criminal records check. Staff vaccination was maintained in line with current UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) guidance if relevant to their role.

The service did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment, although they made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The service had cleaning schedules available, and audits undertaken to ensure compliance. 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 carried out risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance. However, the IPC audits identified areas that required attention and action plans had not been put in place for all of these, for example rusty radiators. The IPC audit also identified carpeted areas in the waiting area, corridor and staff room, which was stained, and fabric seating in a poor condition in waiting areas. The provider told us they planned to replace carpet and seating in the waiting areas with suitable alternatives in the near future. However, action had not been taken to mitigate the risks of fabric seats and carpet in the meantime. Following our assessment, the provider sent us risk assessments and action plans which detailed how these risks would be managed.

Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control.

People we spoke with during our site visit told us they were satisfied with the cleanliness and hygiene standards of the practice, although one person commented that the seating in the waiting area appeared a bit grubby.

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