Selborne Road Medical Centre

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 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.

Selborne Road Medical Centre detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider had contracts in place to ensure the premises was well maintained. Staff and leaders had completed health and safety risk assessments and undertaken audits to ensure they had identified and addressed any potential risks.

Portable appliance testing and calibration of equipment were up to date and regular fire safety checks were conducted.

The provider had a business continuity plan which was regularly reviewed and outlined how it would continue to operate in the event of a disruption.

Staff we spoke to on the day of our visit confirmed that they had all the equipment required to undertake their role safely and effectively. They also confirmed that they were satisfied with the health and safety arrangements at the practice.

However, it was noted during our visit that, although hazardous substances were stored securely, there was no appropriate signage on the cleaning cupboard.

Also, the provider did not hold a copy of the most recent asbestos report for the premises, however we were assured that one had been done prior to the commencement of recent building work, having reviewed further information.

Staff at Selborne Road Medical Centre received effective support, supervision and development and worked together well to provide safe care that met people's individual needs. The provider did not however always follow its own recruitment and infection prevention and control procedures to ensure appropriate assurances regarding staff suitability and protection from infection risks.

The provider employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included 2 GPs, a nurse, a healthcare assistant, Practice Manager, and reception staff. Other staff worked at the practice via the local Primary Care Network and the NHS Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme including Social Prescribers, a First Contact Physiotherapist, Paramedic, Community Phlebotomist and Mental Health Practitioners.

Staff we spoke to on the day of our visit confirmed that, when all staff were at work, there were enough staff to provide safe, quality care and that, during periods of staff absence, adequate staff cover was maintained.

Leaders ensured that staff were up to date with their training which the service had deemed mandatory and operated within their agreed areas of competence.

We found most training was up to date and that the learning needs and development of staff was mostly managed appropriately. One member of clinical staff had not completed Safeguarding Children training to the required level for their job role however, but this was addressed by the provider when highlighted to them.

A system was in place to record and monitor training completion and, in some cases where training had not been completed, there was mitigation for this (for example staff absence or availability of external providers).

The provider generally followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, which were in line with national legislation. This included completing identity checks, reviewing qualifications, obtaining professional references and an appropriate level of criminal record check.

It was noted however that they did not follow their Infection Prevention and Control Policy and did not maintain a complete record of staff immunisation status as per national guidelines.

It was also noted that they did not follow their Recruitment Policy and did not obtain a satisfactory health declaration/ physical and mental health information prior to offering employment to substantive, temporary, and voluntary staff.

Selborne Road Medical Centre assessed and managed the risk of infection. It detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

During our onsite visit, the premises and a sample of equipment were reviewed and were noted to be visibly clean.

The provider’s infection, prevention, and control lead conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance and acted where necessary to mitigate any identified risks.

Annual IPC training was mandatory for all staff, and all staff had completed it.

During our visit however, it was noted that, although the provider had cleaning schedules available, which outlined how staff should clean the building and its equipment, they could not demonstrate how these were monitored for completion to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements.

Additionally, some single use items (specifically 3 specimen collection kits and 2 vaginal speculums) were found in consultation rooms which were out of date. These were immediately removed by the practice manager.

As highlighted under the quality statement ‘Safe and Effective Staffing,’ the practice also did not maintain records of staff immunisation status in line with national guidelines.

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