Grange Surgery

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 provider detected and controlled potential risks in the environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. A range of contracts were in place to ensure the premises were maintained appropriately.

The service was located in an adapted building. All required aids, adaptations and facilities were in place to ensure the premises were fully accessible for all people.

A health and safety risk assessment was in place and health and safety related checks and audits were carried out. Health and safety related policies and procedures were in place, including those related to fire safety. Staff had been provided with training in health and safety related topics such as fire safety, infection control and manual handling. Staff told us they had no concerns with the arrangements in place for ensuring health and safety.

There was a business continuity plan in place to provide guidance for dealing with a major disruption to the service, for example an IT failure.

The provider made sure there was a good level of qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and opportunities to develop. There were sufficient numbers of staff to ensure the provision of appointments met patient demand. This was reflected in high levels of patient satisfaction. Feedback we viewed from people who used the service was highly positive with comments indicating high levels of satisfaction with members of the staff team and with access to clinicians. People’s experience of their interactions with members of the staff team and the service overall were frequently described as ‘excellent’.

Staff had protected learning time for them to undertake training, learning and professional development and they received training appropriate and relevant to their role. Staff told us they worked well together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. 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. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining of professional references and a criminal records check. Staff vaccination status was obtained for the clinical team, the provider should extend relevant checks to members of the non-clinical team.

All new staff underwent an induction programme and were required to undertake mandatory training within an appropriate timescale. Staff were provided with the support they needed to deliver safe care and treatment.

People who used the service benefited from a stable clinical team, resulting in consistent care and treatment. There were appropriate arrangements in place for covering staff sickness, absence and vacancies and the use of temporary staff was minimal.

The provider assessed and had procedures in place to prevent the risk and spread of infection. A schedule of environmental improvements was in place to improve the facilities and premises and support infection prevention. Personal protective equipment was in good supply and located appropriately around the premises.

There were clear roles and responsibilities around infection prevention and control with a dedicated lead person and staff had undergone training appropriate to their role.

Cleaning schedules were in place and cleaning equipment was stored securely and in line with best practice.

During our onsite visit, the premises and a sample of equipment were reviewed and noted to be visibly clean. The infection prevention and control lead conducted regular focused audits to ensure compliance and took action where necessary to mitigate any identified risks.

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