Chagford Health Centre

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 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 detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Staff and leaders completed health and safety risk assessments and undertook audits to ensure they had identified and addressed all risks. However, the service did not have an overarching health and safety risk assessment. Following our site visit, the service sent evidence of a completed health and safety risk assessment.

The service environment allowed them to facilitate additional treatments, including minor operations.

There were contracts to ensure the premises were maintained. For example, gas and electrical equipment had annual servicing and medical equipment was calibrated in line with manufacturers recommendations. Safety alerts relating to equipment were shared with the relevant staff and acted on. Portable appliances were tested on an annual basis. Records viewed showed maintenance checks had been completed.

An annual fire risk assessment had been completed in November 2025. The service conducted weekly fire tests, staff completed fire training and attended regular fire drills which included the evacuation of people. However, the service did not have any fire marshal trained staff. Following our site visit, the service sent evidence of fire marshal training scheduled to be attended by staff on 15 May 2026.

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

The service was accessible for all people and included space for wheelchairs and prams. Hallways and corridors were clean and tidy and free from clutter. Staff offices were secure, and access was restricted from the public.

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, administrators, a dietician, mental health and wellbeing coach and physiotherapists. Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their training, which the service had deemed mandatory and operated within their agreed areas of competence.

The service followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, which was in line with national legislation. We reviewed 4 recruitment files which evidenced staff had appropriate recruitment checks, including references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. (DBS is a check which enables employers to check the criminal records of current and potential employees to ascertain whether they are suitable to work).

However, the service was not always routinely checking staff had renewed their registration with professional bodies. Following our site visit, the service sent evidence this had been obtained and added to a software system, with set reminders to check these on an annual basis (in line with the professional registration bodies expiry date).

Learning needs and the development of staff was managed appropriately. Staff were working within their agreed areas of competence. Staff told us their development and support were a priority to management, and all staff members had developed into additional roles including lead roles. Staff were encouraged to access additional training they felt would support their development. All staff had annual appraisals that focussed on development and staff wellbeing.

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. However, we saw shortfalls in some processes, and we couldn’t be assured these were fully embedded.

The service had reviewed and updated the IPC policy recently. They had identified the policy had not been reviewed since 2023 following changes to management structures. There was a newly appointed IPC lead in place, who completed the relevant training in March 2026. Since then, they had commenced monthly risk assessments and audits and had completed an annual IPC statement. However, not all risk assessments/audits were completed and/or embedded into practice. The service had a plan to conduct hand hygiene audits, having recently sourced the required equipment to complete these. The IPC lead had protected time each month, to conduct their lead role activities.

During our onsite visit, the premises and a sample of equipment reviewed was noted to be visibly clean. The service had cleaning schedules available, which outlined how internal and external staff should clean the building and its equipment. External cleaning company completed cleaning schedules detailing daily and weekly tasks they completed. There was a communication book to liaise with the cleaners. They demonstrated how these were monitored for completion to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements. However, cleaning schedules for the external cleaning company, did not include deep cleaning of chairs and a sofa in the service, which did not have wipeable surfaces. Recent newly implemented audits in March 2026, had identified these as an area for action and replacements were being sourced. Following our site visit, the service sent evidence of deep cleaning being arranged with their external cleaning company, risk assessments being completed and new chairs having been ordered.

Clinical rooms had adequate provision of personal protective equipment (PPE) and handwashing facilities. However, we identified hand soap and hand sanitisers were not tamperproof and risk assessments had not been completed for these. Following our site visit, the service sent evidence risk assessments having been completed.

Staff had completed relevant training in IPC.

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