Bankfield 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 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 completed health and safety checks to identify and control potential risks; however, these were not comprehensive. During the onsite visit, we noted the service had undertaken their own legionella assessment. The service recognised this was not fully comprehensive and was sourcing additional support from an external company for activities such as legionella sampling and water temperature testing.

Systems were in place to monitor fire safety; however, this was not always effective. For example, on the day of the assessment we found weekly fire alarm testing records at the branch surgery had not been fully completed, which meant the service could not demonstrate consistent oversight of fire safety checks.

There was a business continuity plan in place that was regularly reviewed and outline how the service should continue to operate in the event of a disruption. Cleaning schedules were in place to maintain a clean and safe environment.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The service did not have systems in place to routinely verify the ongoing professional registration of clinical staff. Following feedback, the service acknowledged this oversight and informed us they would implement a process to undertake regular checks of professional registrations.

Recruitment processes were in place to ensure appropriate numbers of suitably trained staff were employed. We reviewed a sample of staff personnel files and found that necessary recruitment checks had been undertaken and documentation was in place, except for 1 staff member where there were no references stored on their file. Following the assessment, the service explained the references may have been missing due to migration to a new information governance platform and subsequently provided evidence the appropriate reference checks had been obtained.

There were multidisciplinary teams within the service, with a range of clinical and non-clinical staff. Systems were in place to support staff development. Staff had access to a designated manager for supervision and support, staff we spoke with confirmed this. Clinical staff participated in debrief discussions following clinical sessions, which provided opportunities for reflection, discussion of clinical matters and ongoing professional development. Staff told us they were up to date with their training. We found the practice manager monitored training compliance to ensure staff remained up to date with required training.

Managers carried out regular meetings with staff, these meetings were scheduled on different days to support attendance by part time staff. Annual appraisals were in place and documented in staff files.

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

An infection prevention and control (IPC) lead was in place, providing clear oversight and accountability for maintaining safe practices. There was a system in place to monitor and review IPC arrangements. Staff had completed appropriate IPC training relevant to their role, and they knew their roles and responsibilities around IPC. IPC policies and cleaning schedules were in place and followed to ensure the premises and equipment were kept clean. Clinical rooms had adequate provision of personal protective equipment and handwashing facilities. IPC audits were completed to identify and mitigate potential 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.