Brewer Street Surgery Also known as Brewer Street 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 people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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 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 was maintained. Staff and leaders completed health and safety risk assessments and undertook audits to ensure they had identified and addressed risks found. For example, the last health and safety audit was conducted in August 2025 and identified a broken fence in the car park as a tripping hazard. Leaders installed a new fence to correct 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 plan was reviewed in October 2025.

The service had assessed risk in relation to fire safety and took action to address concerns identified. For example, in their latest fire risk assessment conducted in August 2025, they identified the fire exit had been blocked. In response, the service installed a new sign by the fire exit to ensure that cars did not block any emergency exit routes out of the premises.

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 employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included GPs, nurses, healthcare assistants, a paramedic, a pharmacy team and reception team. Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their training which the service had deemed mandatory. For example, staff were frequently met with to ensure their individual objectives were on track and had annual appraisals to review performance. Clinical staff maintained their professional registrations.

Leaders monitored training through maintained records and contacted staff when they needed to complete any mandatory training for their role.

Staff were developed where possible. For example, staff told us they were given opportunities to complete clinical skill courses such as enhanced knowledge in a particular subject such as Diabetes or prescribing qualifications so that they could be empowered to provide better care.

The service followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, which were in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining professional references and a criminal records check. Our sample of 5 staff member’s recruitment and training records supported these findings, and the records were stored securely.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled most risks relating to infection 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 the oversight of cleaning arrangements.

During our onsite visit, the service's premises and a sample of equipment was reviewed and noted to be visibly clean. The service’s infection prevention and control (IPC) lead conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance and acted where necessary to mitigate identified risks.

The service’s last IPC risk assessment was conducted in November 2025. Leaders took action on identified risks. For example, a ventilation vent was installed in a consulting room and treatment room to comply with minor surgery IPC requirements for the environment. This was completed in January 2026. The service had been risk assessed for Legionella in February 2026.

Staff had completed relevant training in IPC. This was confirmed through our review of training records.

However, during our assessment we identified a sink in a consulting room was not in line with IPC recommendations. For example, it had non-mixer taps, an overflow feature, and an attached plug in the basin. This had not been identified in the November 2025 IPC audit. We raised this with leaders to address.

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