Drs Prees, Weldon & Hogg Also known as Batheaston 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.

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, paramedics and pharmacists. Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their training which the service had deemed mandatory and operated within their agreed areas of competence. 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.
Staff received a formal induction relevant to their role and responsibilities and were supported through ongoing appraisals. The service had named supervisors for the medical students at the service as part of their education placements.
There were systems to monitor staff completion of required training, including opportunities for continuous professional development (CPD). Staff told us the service ensured staff were supported in their roles.
 

The service did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.
Although the service had undertaken water temperature monitoring and routine flushing of water outlets, records showed hot and cold-water temperatures were consistently outside national guidance. These concerns had also been identified within legionella servicing assessments. The service had not demonstrated sufficient assurances or mitigating actions to reduce the risk of legionella bacteria growth. After our on-site visit, the service provided evidence of an additional external contractor legionella assessment to demonstrate water temperatures were in line with national guidelines.
The service had an infection prevention and control (IPC) handbook which outlined guidelines and an audit program. However, we noted audits within the handbook were uncompleted, including hand hygiene and aseptic non-touch technique (ANTT), personal protective equipment (PPE) compliance, specimen handling, cold chain management, clinical waste segregation, equipment cleaning, and workplace vaccinations to demonstrate the review of IPC standards in the service against evidence-based guidelines. While the service had completed an annual IPC environmental audit in December 2025, we noted actions remained incomplete beyond their target completion dates. This included a process for reporting of untoward IPC incidents, staff training for vaccine handling, IPC risk assessments, staff immunisations, guidance for bodily fluid spillages and disposals, decontamination cleaning schedules and a review of the service’s cold chain policy to include actions required for the disposal of vaccines. As a result, the service could not demonstrate IPC risks were being routinely monitored and addressed to support continuous improvement to safety. The IPC lead had started to review the audit standards to implement regular audits as part of the service’s improvement planning, as a result of our assessment.
Although the service had retained cleaning audits undertaken by the external cleaning contractor, there was no documented risk assessment or standard operating procedure to manage contractor performance or monitor recurring cleaning issues. We found examples of repeated cleaning shortfalls within some rooms that had not been effectively addressed. For example, the service had not fully embedded its high-touch area cleaning arrangements and could not consistently demonstrate through records that cleaning standards were being maintained. There was an ineffective system to record cleaning of clinical rooms following use or to evidence the decontamination of reusable equipment after each use. This included clinical diagnostic equipment, furniture and a wheelchair located in the waiting area. As a result, the service could not demonstrate consistent cleaning standards in accordance with IPC national guidelines.
Although the IPC lead had begun developing an induction programme for new staff; this had not been implemented at the time of our on-site visit. The service could not be assured all staff were aware of local IPC procedures, particularly as routine IPC audits had not yet recommenced.
However, evidence was provided following our on-site visit to demonstrate carpet cleaning had been undertaken in March 2026 in line with policy requirements. The service had a plan to implement IPC updates including audits as part of regular clinical meetings, although this had yet to have commenced.
 

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