Dr JD Seabrook and Dr H L Chambers

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 potential risks in the care environment, but some improvements were required. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The service did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment, for example, the actions identified from the fire risk assessment dated from 2017 had not been completed. However, following the inspection the practice had a new risk assessments carried out and had made arrangements for any actions to be resolved.

During the inspection we found out of date equipment used for taking cervical smears. The practice immediately removed these from the clinic.

Water temperature monitoring to manage the risk of legionella was not consistently completed within the practice. The practice informed us after the inspection that they had implemented a new system to ensure water temperature checks would be carried out. The practice also arranged for new full legionella risk assessment to be completed.

The service had contracts to ensure the equipment was maintained and serviced regularly. Staff and leaders undertook audits to ensure they had identified and addressed all risks such as the infection control audit. The service had a business continuity plan which was regularly reviewed and outlined how the service should continue to operate in the event of a disruption.

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, and administration staff. 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. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining of professional references and a criminal records check.

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.

The service had cleaning schedules available, which outlined how staff should clean the building and its equipment. The service demonstrated how these were monitored for completion to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements. During our onsite visit, the service's premises and a sample of equipment reviewed was noted to be visibly clean. We observed the flooring in the patient toilet to be in a worn state and in need of replacement.

The service’s infection prevention and control lead conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance and took action where necessary to mitigate any identified risks. Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control.

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