Albany House 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 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 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 care environment. They ensured equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Contracts were in place to maintain the premises and health and safety risk assessments and audits were undertaken, with identified risks acted upon. There was a business continuity plan in place which was reviewed regularly. The provider had effective arrangements for fire and water safety, including routine testing, monitoring and risk assessments. Learning from fire drills had been used to improve emergency arrangements, and leaders demonstrated a proactive approach to addressing environmental issues identified through ongoing oversight.

The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff to deliver safe care and treatment. Staff worked collaboratively across clinical and non-clinical teams to meet people's needs.

The provider had effective systems to monitor training, competencies and professional development. Staff completed mandatory training appropriate to their roles and received regular supervision, appraisal and support. Learning needs were reviewed through training records, practice meetings and performance discussions.

There were a range of clinical and non-clinical staff who worked within their competencies. Leaders used practical emergency scenarios and drills to test staff knowledge and identify learning opportunities.

Safe recruitment processes were followed. The provider had arrangements in place to manage staffing changes and ensure services continued to run effectively.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The practice had a designated infection prevention and control (IPC) lead, and staff had received relevant training. Cleaning schedules were in place and followed. The provider assessed and managed IPC risks through risk assessments, annual audits and regular hand hygiene monitoring.

Leaders had acted on findings from IPC audits, including improvements to clinical waste arrangements and the introduction of pedal-operated bins. The premises were visibly clean and daily cleaning was undertaken by an external contractor. Arrangements were in place to reduce the risk of infection transmission, including a separate waiting area for patients with suspected infectious illnesses and clear processes for the management of sharps and 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.