Earlsfield 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 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. This included carrying out regular risk assessments of fire, health and safety and legionella and completing electrical checks in line with legal requirements. Where actions were identified in the assessments, they had completed them or were working towards completing them.

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, healthcare assistants, pharmacists and physician associates. Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their training which the service had deemed mandatory and operated within their agreed areas of competence. We reviewed training records and saw that staff had completed training in line with requirements. This included safeguarding, infection control and basic life support.

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. We reviewed 4 staff records which confirmed this.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection; however, infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures were not always implemented consistently. Although the practice had established IPC arrangements and had acted on most recommendations arising from a recent external audit, some actions had not been fully implemented. For example, privacy curtains in 2 consulting rooms, dated 2023, remained in use despite the audit identifying that they should be replaced. The IPC lead told us they believed the curtains were compliant with the guidance they had been following. Following discussion during the inspection, the practice reviewed the NHS National Standards of Healthcare Cleanliness 2025 and recognised that replacement was required. The curtains in both consulting rooms were replaced before the end of the site visit.

The service had cleaning schedules available, which outlined how staff and the cleaning contractors should clean the building and its equipment. During our onsite visit, the service's premises and a sample of equipment reviewed was noted to be visibly clean. 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.