Mile Oak 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 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. For example, the service conducted a fire risk assessment that was subsequently reviewed, with all required actions addressed or mitigated. Fire drills were performed regularly and staff were trained on fire safety. Equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care, with visual prompts supporting policy and processes. The service had a business continuity plan. This 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 followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, which was in line with national legislation. This involved identity checks, qualification reviews, professional references, and a criminal records check.

The service employed staff in a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included GPs, nurses and pharmacists alongside staff (such as a physiotherapist) in associated roles funded by the primary care network. Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their training which the service had deemed mandatory and operated within their agreed areas of competence.

Staff praised the quality of clinical support available from colleagues and described this as one of the strengths of the team. Supervision arrangements were in place and staff told us they received meaningful clinical supervision and engagement with colleagues. Poor performance was recognised and addressed appropriately.

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’s infection prevention and control lead conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance (including handwashing spot checks) and took action to mitigate any identified risks. Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control.

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. During our site visit, the service's premises and a sample of equipment reviewed was noted to be visibly clean.

Antibiotic prescribing was monitored. Clinical staff were aware of the process to report notifiable communicable diseases and could use a separate room if people needed to be isolated from other patients due to an infection risk.

However, while the service carried out minor surgical procedures, they did not have a written aseptic protocol available for reference. We were told this oversight would be addressed following the assessment. We also observed that some clinical rooms were carpeted. This had been risk-assessed and mitigation put in place. The carpets were low-pile and deep cleaned regularly to minimise risk. The nursing and health care assistants were purposely located in rooms with hard flooring as these consultations were more likely to involve examination of wounds, injections, blood testing and other physical interventions. The service planned to fully bring the flooring up to compliance as funding became available, however no timescale was provided to demonstrate when this would happen.

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