The Neaman 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

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 building was secure with access restricted with keypad entry where appropriate and a health and safety risk assessment identified no risks. The service had undertaken a fire safety risk assessment and strengthened its fire safety arrangements by addressing a fire compartmentalisation identified risk.

Systems were in place to identify, monitor and respond to environmental risks.. An accident and incident log were maintained, and staff were able to describe how environmental risks were identified, reported and mitigated and they demonstrated a clear understanding of their responsibilities for maintaining a safe environment. A minor safety incident that occurred during the onsite assessment was managed promptly and appropriately by staff.

Equipment used to support the delivery of care and treatment was maintained and serviced in accordance with relevant guidance.

The service had a business continuity plan which was reviewed regularly and clearly outlined how essential services would be maintained in the event of a disruption.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff that received appropriate support and supervision. Most staff training or updates needed had been completed.

The practice employed and worked closely with partner agencies and multidisciplinary teams, including GPs, GP registrars, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists, health visitors, podiatrists, social prescribing and wellbeing staff, an in-house psychotherapy team, a dietitian, and specialist diabetes and dermatology clinicians.

The service followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, verification of qualifications, professional references and criminal records (DBS) checks. Medical indemnity insurance was in place for clinical staff, where required.

Systems were in place for staff induction, supervision, and professional development. There were processes to monitor and manage staff performance for the event where of inconsistent or below expected performance standards.

Most staff had received refresher training and mandatory or appropriate role specific training. However, a nurse undertaking cervical screening had last completed update training in 2018. This did not align with NHS Cervical Screening Programme guidance, which requires qualified cervical sample takers to complete update training every three years to maintain competence. Records showed that some clinicians had not completed safeguarding training at the level expected for their role in accordance with national intercollegiate safeguarding guidance. The service was responsive to our feedback, and it immediately remedied safeguarding training concerns and enhanced fire warden training to ensure cover across the rota. The practice was strengthening existing systems for monitoring and oversight of staff HR requirements including prompts and oversight of checks and updates needed.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and systems were in place to ensure concerns would be promptly shared with appropriate agencies.

The practice was clean, tidy, and well maintained and a GP partner was the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) Lead. Appropriate IPC processes and procedures were in place and staff demonstrated awareness of these, including the requirement to report notifiable diseases to relevant agencies. Staff had immunity status or vaccination checks to help protect patients and staff from the risk of infection.

The service undertook infection prevention and control (IPC) audits in line with national guidance and demonstrated that findings were reviewed, actioned, and followed up appropriately. The IPC Lead Annual Statement was circulated to staff to support transparency, accountability and oversight of infection prevention and control arrangements.

Suitable procedures were in place for the handling of clinical specimens and sharps, including the management of needlestick injuries. A clinical waste pre-acceptance audit had been completed, and comprehensive cleaning schedules for the premises and equipment were implemented and monitored.

During our onsite inspection, a sample of equipment we checked was visibly clean. Staff had received infection prevention and control training relevant to their roles and were able to describe the procedures they followed to minimise the risk of infection.

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