The Bridge 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 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 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 did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The service had undertaken several health and safety risk assessments including a fire risk assessment. However, during our on-site assessment, we identified some areas where systems and processes required strengthening. For example, fire drills had not been completed, and weekly fire alarm testing was not being undertaken. In addition, there was no up-to-date legionella risk assessment in place, although leaders provided assurance that regular water temperature monitoring and water sampling were being carried out. We also found that portable appliance testing (PAT) had not been completed; however, equipment calibration checks were being undertaken as required. Following our feedback, leaders responded positively and provided assurances for the issues. Staff-only areas were secured with lockable doors to restrict unauthorised access and promote the safety and security of staff. Following our feedback, leaders responded positively and provided assurances for the issues. The service had a business continuity plan, which was subject to regular review and set out arrangements to support the continued delivery of services in the event of an emergency or significant disruption.

The service did not always ensure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. There was not a robust recruitment process in place, as not all necessary recruitment documentation was readily available for review. Following the assessment, the provider supplied most of the missing records and provided assurance that improvements would be made to strengthen recruitment procedures going forward.

The practice employed a range of clinical and non-clinical staff, all of whom were working within their scope of competence. As a training practice, they supported a GP registrar. Arrangements such as clinical supervision, dedicated time to debrief every day and an open and supportive culture, encouraged staff to seek advice and raise questions whenever required.

At the time of the assessment, not all staff had completed their mandatory training. The provider subsequently submitted evidence demonstrating that outstanding training requirements had been addressed. Most staff had received an annual appraisal and were provided with opportunities for learning and professional development. Feedback from staff was positive, with staff reporting that they felt supported by both colleagues and leaders and were satisfied in their roles.

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 practice had a designated infection prevention and control (IPC) lead who had oversight of IPC arrangements. Staff demonstrated an understanding of their roles and responsibilities in relation to IPC and had completed training appropriate to their role. Policies, procedures and cleaning schedules were in place to promote a clean and safe environment for patients and staff. The practice shared the results of an IPC audit, which had identified several areas requiring improvement. We found that most of the risks identified had been actioned. There were arrangements in place for clinical waste and sharps bin collections. Hand hygiene exercises were undertaken by staff to reinforce the importance of effective infection prevention and control practices.

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