Islip 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

Staff kept facilities clean and maintained premises well. There were sufficient staff with the necessary skills and experience to deliver care. Some improvements were identified regarding oversight of mandatory training compliance. The practice acted promptly following the assessment to address these areas and strengthen their systems

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 practice 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 to ensure the premises was maintained. Legionella and Fire Risk assessments had been undertaken and risks identified had been addressed. There was a business continuity plan in place which was monitored and reviewed and outlined how the service would continue to operate in the event of a disruption.

We observed the blinds at all windows in the surgery did not meet safety requirements and were potentially hazardous due to them having a loop system in place. The practice responded to this feedback and arranged for appropriate cord safety mechanism to be fitted to window blinds to ensure compliance with safety requirements.

The practice made sure staff received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. However, not all staff were up to date with their mandatory training.

At the time of the site visit, we reviewed a sample of training records for staff at the practice. Some of the staff records viewed on the day were not up to date with their mandatory training. For example, we found that a GP and a practice nurse had not completed Level 3 safeguarding training. In addition, the dispensary staff had not completed basic life support training. These gaps indicated that mandatory training requirements were not being effectively monitored.

Some training records were sent to us shortly after the site visit. The provider confirmed they were in the process of addressing any gaps in mandatory training.

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

The practice 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 practice demonstrated how these were monitored for completion to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements.

The infection prevention and control lead conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance and took action where necessary to mitigate any identified 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.