Dr Hutchings and Partners

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 that staff protected people from avoidable harm and made sure care was delivered from environments that were clean and well maintained. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 66 (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 did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The practice had arranged for health and safety risk assessments to be undertaken by contractors in August 2025. Action plans had been produced which highlighted risks and the timescales within which each should be addressed. For example, the legionella risk assessment required the practice to address inadequate hot water temperatures ‘as soon as possible’. In response, the practice had replaced a boiler part in March 2026 and we saw evidence that correct temperatures were now being achieved. However, some of the risk assessments contained action plan points that had not been addressed in a timely manner. For example, in the fire risk assessment, fire doors installed at the practice did not comply with current guidelines and required action ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’. We spoke with leaders about this and other outstanding action plan items. They told us that quotes for work had been arranged and received, but scheduled work had not been commenced. Following our visit, the practice provided a plan of work for outstanding items, with anticipated completion by the end of July 2026.

All staff had completed mandatory fire training and selected staff had also completed additional training to act as fire marshals in the event of a fire. A programme of fire alarm testing and fire drills was in place and we saw correct signage for fire escapes with lighting, as required. Fire extinguishers and break-glass points were installed and correctly maintained.

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

Staff at the practice worked together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. They received support, supervision and development. However, the practice records did not consistently demonstrate that staff training and recruitment procedures were adequate or complete.

The practice employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included GPs, nurses, and a clinical pharmacist. Staff operated within their agreed areas of competence. However, leaders had not ensured all staff were up to date with relevant training. For example, whilst we were told that clinical staff regularly attended training for management of long-term conditions, records were unable to demonstrate that all clinicians had attended an update in the last year. Following our visit, this training had been arranged within the next calendar month. Leaders had also reviewed their mandatory training requirements for each staff group to ensure they had the required skills for their roles.

The practice had not always followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, in line with national legislation. Processes for obtaining professional references, employment histories and criminal records checks were not effective and needed improvement to keep people safe. Evidence of missing criminal records checks was subsequently received following our assessment.

The practice did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The practice had 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. During our onsite visit, the practice premises and a sample of equipment reviewed was noted to be visibly clean.

An infection prevention and control (IPC) audit had been conducted in August 2025, but we found action had not been taken to address all identified areas of concern and mitigate all identified risks. For example, the audit results stated the practice had not participated in activities designed to support antimicrobial stewardship, to support the appropriate use of antibiotics. Since the assessment, the practice has provided evidence of ongoing work with antibiotic prescribing, in line with local antibiotic prescribing targets. They have also arranged for their prescribers to undertake training as ‘antibiotic guardians’ to further support this work. Leaders have also amended the mandatory training requirements to include sepsis awareness for non-clinicians. This aims to allow staff in reception and those working in triage, to quickly identify infection and sepsis risk in presenting patients.

Evidence of ongoing IPC risk assessments was not provided but we saw staff had completed relevant training in IPC. We were not assured that staff were accessing the most current IPC guidance, as two versions of the IPC policy were provided. The outdated policy was removed after it was identified during the assessment.

Staff records held by the practice did not contain evidence that all staff were up to date with relevant immunisations, as detailed in national guidance, to prevent the spread of infection. For example, we found that records for one clinician did not contain all required information about immunisation for hepatitis B or varicella. In response to this concern, the practice have provided a plan for strengthening their processes and plan to reassess the immunisation status of all staff within the next 2 weeks.

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