Fressingfield 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 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 75 (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, and completed ongoing checks, to ensure the premises were maintained. These included for example, fire, electrical and water safety and equipment calibration. An external general risk assessment had been completed for both sites. Identified actions had been completed and risks addressed. Staff we spoke with had no concerns about the health and safety and fire arrangements in place. The service had a business continuity policy and disaster recovery plan. These were 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. Feedback from people and care home representatives was positive, particularly regarding the knowledge, skill, care and treatment provided by clinical staff, as well as the helpfulness of non-clinical staff.

Leaders had oversight of the completion of staff training, which included training the service had deemed mandatory. 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 Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. Checks of the professional registration of clinical staff were made at recruitment and on an ongoing basis.

Effective arrangements were in place for staff induction. Clinicians we spoke with told us they were supported to undertake their roles, could easily obtain advice from a GP and worked within their agreed areas of competence. Some arrangements were in place for the oversight of staff working in extended clinical roles, which included those who prescribed medicines. For example, clinicians received regular supervision and review of their practice, however their work was not formally audited and documented. In response, the provider confirmed that they would formalise their process to ensure oversight was clearly recorded.

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.

People we received feedback from gave positive feedback or had no concerns about the cleanliness of the service. A care home representative gave positive feedback about the infection prevention and control (IPC) arrangements followed by visiting clinicians from the service.

The service had cleaning schedules available, which outlined how staff should clean the building and its equipment. The service demonstrated how these were monitored for completion to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements.

The service’s IPC lead with support from other staff, conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance. We reviewed the most recent IPC audit and found some actions identified to mitigate risks had been completed and other actions were in progress. During our onsite visit, the service's premises and a sample of equipment reviewed were noted to be visibly clean. Staff had completed relevant training in IPC. Appropriate arrangements were in place to manage clinical waste.

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