Barton House Group 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 avoidable harm. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 69 (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 property was leased from NHS property services, and some risk assessments were not held on site, during the site visit we were unable to review, the health and safety risk assessment, fire procedure and actions taken following the legionella risk assessment.

Staff identified and managed environmental risks effectively and informed property services of any maintenance issues. Facilities and equipment were clean, and suitable for service delivery, with appropriate risk assessments in place. A business continuity plan was established and regularly reviewed to ensure service resilience during disruptions. All staff had completed health and safety training, but some had not reviewed it annually.

During the site visit we saw one of the vaccine fridges was in a room with door propped open at the time, which could have enabled access to the medicines.

The leaders followed safe recruitment procedures, and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were in place, and all the required pre-employment checks completed.

Staff confirmed they received a full induction, and managers generally ensured ongoing training and regular appraisals to support safe care.

Although staff had completed mandatory training, staff training information provided indicated that non-clinical staff were not required to complete annual Basic Life Support (BLS) training. However, Resuscitation Council UK guidance states that non-clinical staff should usually receive annual updates, or a local risk assessment should be undertaken to determine the likelihood of them encountering a patient requiring resuscitation.

Additionally, some staff had not completed the appropriate level of adult and children’s safeguarding training. Furthermore, it was stated that there were no requirements for travel vaccine updates; this is incorrect, as appropriate update arrangements should be in place to maintain staff competency.

The leaders monitored the uptake of appointments to ensure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. The leaders told us and staff confirmed that received paid time to complete training, support, and development opportunities.

The practice nurse, healthcare assistant, locum GPs and pharmacist had their patient consultation records regularly reviewed by the lead GP to ensure clinical competence. However, this was not always formally recorded.

The staff effectively assessed and managed infection risks. They promptly identified and controlled potential spread, sharing concerns with relevant agencies. During the onsite visit, the practice premises and sampled equipment were observed to be visibly clean. A designated infection prevention and control lead was in place, and all staff had received appropriate training. Cleaning schedules were followed, and audits and risk assessments were completed annually with actions taken to reduce risks. All staff had completed infection prevention and control training, but some had not reviewed it annually.

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