The Boat House Surgery Also known as Pangbourne Medical 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

Staff kept facilities clean and maintained equipment appropriately to ensure people were kept safe. They assessed and managed the risk of infection well. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications, and experience.

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 made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. They had contracts to ensure the premises was maintained.

Staff and leaders completed health and safety risk assessments and undertook audits to ensure they had identified and addressed all risks. There were policies and procedures in place that demonstrate awareness of fire safety requirements, including local fire procedures and legionella protocols.

There was a business continuity plan which was regularly reviewed and outlined how the service should continue to operate in the event of a disruption.

The provider 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.

They employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included GPs, nurses, paramedics and pharmacists. Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their training which the service had deemed mandatory and operated within their agreed areas of competence. However, we found that not all clinical staff had completed their mandatory Mental Capacity Act (MCA) training. The provider responded promptly to this finding and was able to demonstrate that training had been completed shortly after the site visit.

Safe recruitment procedures were followed when employing staff, which were in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining of professional references and a criminal records check.

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.

There were cleaning schedules available, which outlined how staff should clean the building and its equipment. The infection prevention and control (IPC) lead demonstrated how these were monitored for completion to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements. During our onsite visit, the premises was noted to be visibly clean. The service’s IPC lead along with the practice manager conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance and took action where necessary to mitigate any identified risks. 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.