Dr Teotia and partners Also known as Green Lane 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 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.

There were systems to manage safety risks in the practice environment. The practice had a health and safety policy, and staff used a risk register to support safety of the environment. There were maintenance contracts to uphold safety standards.

Staff and leaders had completed health and safety audits and risk assessments, including electrical, and gas checks, within the last 12 months. All identified risks had been appropriately addressed.

The GP Partner had completed a fire safety risk assessment in February 2026. However, at the time of our assessment, although staff were recording tests of the fire alarm and emergency lighting, there was no evidence of fire alarm servicing or inspection of the emergency escape lighting by an engineer. In addition, the practice had not recorded annual fire extinguisher maintenance inspections in line with Fire Safety standards.

Immediately following our inspection, leaders arranged for an engineer to inspect the fire detection system, fire extinguishers and emergency lighting system. The practice also sent us a fire safety compliance certificate following an assessment by a professional fire safety company on 10 July 2026.

The GP Partner had completed a legionella self-assessment in December 2025, and the overall legionella risk level was assessed to be low. Water outlet temperatures were monitored as part of the practice control process.

Although systems were in place to check resuscitation equipment and emergency medicines, the defibrillator was only being checked monthly. Following feedback, leaders implemented weekly defibrillator checks in line with Resuscitation Council UK guidance. An emergency medicines register was maintained, and staff received reminders one month before any medicines reached their expiry date.

The practice provided evidence of annual portable appliance testing, and calibration of equipment. The service had a business continuity plan which was regularly reviewed to manage major service disruptions. Staff reported no concerns regarding health and safety arrangements.

The service mostly made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development.

Leaders mostly followed safe recruitment processes when employing staff in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining professional references and a criminal records check. However, at the time of our assessment, some recruitment information was not available. For example, there was no record of Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks obtained prior to employment for 3 members of non-clinical staff whose recruitment files we checked.

In addition, one locum GP’s recruitment documentation was incomplete. For example, there was no proof of identity or DBS on file and no record of formal written references (leaders told us they had received references verbally). Following our assessment leaders told us they had obtained copies of the missing recruitment information which was held on file.

We saw the induction checklist was used during induction of new staff.

Staff vaccinations were not always kept up to date in line with Green Book guidance. For example, although 5 staff members whose files we checked had completed hepatitis B screening and vaccination, there was only a partial record of other routine immunisations for 3 of these staff, one of whom was a clinical member of staff. Where vaccination history was not available, there was no record of risk assessments undertaken or evidence of referral to the Occupational Health Service. Managers responded promptly to our findings and following our inspection were able to share evidence of checks of routine immunisations. Leaders told us they would review recruitment procedures to ensure ongoing compliance in these areas.

Leaders used an electronic management tool to monitor completion of mandatory staff training. Learning needs and development of staff was managed appropriately, and staff were working within their agreed areas of competence. Most staff had received an annual appraisal. Where people had specialist needs, staff had received training on how to support autistic people and people with a learning disability.

At the time of this assessment, managers had provided reception staff with virtual Care Navigator training to provide consistency of experience for patients contacting the service.

Clinical staff and non-medical prescribers received support and supervision meetings were routinely documented. However, there was no scope of practice in place for the advanced nurse practitioner to support safe and consistent decision-making.

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. We observed that the facilities and premises were visibly clean, and systems were in place to prevent the spread of infection. The most recent NHS IPC audit carried out was 16/01/2026 and the service achieved 100% compliance. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was well stocked and placed appropriately throughout the building. There was a dedicated lead for infection prevention and control. Staff had received training relevant to their roles.

Cleaning schedules were in place, and regular infection control and cleaning audits were conducted to maintain standards. Clinical waste, sharps, and clinical specimens were managed carefully to keep everyone safe.

There was a clear system for reporting infection concerns to the relevant agencies, such as notifiable diseases.

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