Dr Kent and Partners

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 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.

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 were maintained. Staff and leaders completed health and safety risk assessments and undertook audits; however, these were not always effective in ensuring that all risks were consistently identified and addressed. For example, assessments were in place for materials used by the cleaning company but, no assessments had been completed for materials purchased and used directly by the provider. Following our assessment, the provider took action to address this.

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, systems were not always effective in retaining appropriate evidence and ensuring follow-up actions were completed

While leaders had systems in place to monitor mandatory training and ensure staff worked within their areas of competence, these were not consistently effective in ensuring training was completed.

The service did not always follow safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, in line with national legislation. Of the recruitment files sampled, we found some areas where records were not fully complete, including pre-employment medical screening, vaccination checks, and documentation of registration checks.

Following our assessment, the provider submitted evidence demonstrating that action had been taken to resolve these concerns.

The service assessed and managed most of 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. The service demonstrated how these were monitored for completion to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements. 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 ensure compliance, but it was identified that not all areas of risk were being assessed. For example, clinical waste was not being correctly assessed. Since our assessment we have seen evidence that this has been resolved.

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.