Upton Group 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 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 ensured that equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care but did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment effectively.

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 ensured there were sufficient qualified, skilled and experienced staff who received support, supervision and development. Staff worked well together to provide care that met people’s individual needs; however, governance arrangements relating to workforce compliance were not always effective.

While leaders monitored some aspects of staff training and development, there was no structured process for assigning training requirements by role or for following up staff who had not completed required training.

The service did not consistently record and monitor professional registration, revalidation or staff vaccination status. In addition, the service did not have a formal process in place to record, monitor and retain evidence of required checks for locum staff. These gaps reduced the provider’s ability to maintain effective oversight and assurance of workforce compliance.

Following our assessment, the provider took immediate action to address these concerns and submitted evidence demonstrating that the identified issues had been resolved or that appropriate action plans were in place to support their resolution.

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 service had cleaning schedules available, which outlined how staff 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.

The service’s infection prevention and control lead conducted regular risk assessments and audits to monitor compliance. However, we identified some gaps in the availability of cleaning equipment and found monitoring arrangements for contracted cleaning services were not always effective in identifying or addressing concerns. Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control.

Following the assessment, the provider took prompt action to address these concerns and submitted evidence demonstrating improvements had been made.

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