Tower House 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 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 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.

Overall, the service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

We found that the provider had carried out a legionella risk assessment which had not been reviewed since 2018. Health and Safety guidance recommends that risk assessments are reviewed regularly. The provider was undertaking safety checks, and we were satisfied that patients and staff were not at risk. However, regular reviews of the legionella risk assessment, should be carried out, to ensure it is current, and to enable the identification of any new risks, if present.

We noted that emergency medication and equipment was checked monthly whereas the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommends this should be checked weekly.

Staff had undertaken training in health and safety related topics such as fire safety and manual handling. 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 told us how they worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

There was a system to monitor staffing levels and skill mix to ensure this met the needs of the service and patients.

The service employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included GPs, nurses, a paramedic, general practice associates and a pharmacist. Leaders supported staff to develop, ensured staff were up to date with their role specific training and operated within their agreed areas of competence. Staff received an annual appraisal.

There was a system to monitor mandatory training to ensure staff completed the necessary updates. Some staff were overdue for annual updates, and a plan was in place to address this.

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.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection and had a process to share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

During our onsite visit, a sample of the service's premises and a sample of the equipment we reviewed was noted to be visibly clean. The service had cleaning schedules available, which outlined how staff should clean the building and its equipment.

The service’s infection prevention and control lead conducted regular audits to ensure compliance. We saw that hand hygiene audits and a comprehensive annual audit had been recorded, however, there was no record of the checks that occur in between the annual audit. The provider took action where necessary to mitigate any identified risks.

Personal protective equipment was in sufficient supply and located appropriately around the premises. Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control.

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