Beech House 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 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 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.

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

The surgery had contracts in place to ensure the building was well maintained. Staff and leaders had completed health and safety risk assessments and undertaken audits to ensure they had identified and addressed any potential risks.

Portable appliance testing and calibration of equipment were up to date and regular fire safety checks were conducted. All staff (apart from one who was on leave) had completed fire awareness safety training. Fire Wardens had undertaken additional training specifically tailored to their role.

The surgery had a business continuity plan in place which they regularly reviewed. It outlined how it would continue to operate in the event of a disruption, such as a loss of utilities, incapacity of staff and GPs, loss of access to the building, and loss of their computer system.

Health and Safety training was mandatory for all staff and we saw full completion rates with the exception of one staff member who was on leave.

Staff we spoke to during our visit confirmed that they had all the equipment required to undertake their role safely and effectively. They also confirmed that they were satisfied with the health and safety arrangements at the surgery.

During our visit however, we observed several unsecured blind cords that posed a ligature risk in the building. We also noted that monthly (rather than weekly checks) were being done on emergency drugs, the defibrillator, first aid kits and oxygen cylinders. When these concerns were raised with the provider, immediate action was taken to address them.

Beech House Surgery 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 surgery was owned by 4 GP partners and employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, including administrative and reception staff, an advanced nurse practitioner, practice nurses, health care assistants, and dispensary staff.

Other staff also worked at the surgery via the NHS Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS). These staff included midwives, clinical pharmacists, and pharmacy technicians, first contact physiotherapists, a first contact mental health practitioner, a health and wellbeing coordinator, paramedic, social prescribing link workers, memory support advisor, talking therapies practitioners, and a drug and alcohol support worker.

The surgery participated in the training of trainee doctors in the Harrogate district who were preparing to enter general practice. Medical students from the University of Leeds also regularly spent time with them.

Staff we spoke to on the day of our visit confirmed that, when all staff were at work, there were enough people to provide safe, quality care and that, during periods of staff absence (sickness, annual leave etc.), adequate staff cover was maintained.

Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their mandatory training and operated within their agreed areas of competence. We found most training was up to date and that the learning needs and development of staff was managed appropriately. Where training had not been completed, there was mitigation for this (for example staff absence), and a system was in place to monitor completion.

Staff received annual appraisals and GP Registrars were appropriately supervised, with dedicated debrief slots at the end of each session to receive feedback and discuss cases.

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

Beech House Surgery assessed and managed the risk of infection. It detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The provider had cleaning schedules in place, which outlined how staff should clean the building and its equipment. They demonstrated how these were monitored for completion to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements and during our onsite visit, the premises and a sample of equipment were reviewed and were noted to be visibly clean.

The surgery had two designated infection, prevention and control (IPC) leads (one clinical and one non-clinical) and they conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance, acting where necessary to mitigate any identified risks.

Annual IPC training was mandatory for all staff, and all staff had completed it (apart from one who was on leave).

The surgery maintained records of staff immunisation status in line with national guidelines.

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