St Hilary Group 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 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.

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 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.

Staff and leaders had effective systems to identify, assess and manage risks associated with the premises and equipment. The practice operated from well-maintained, accessible premises that was clean, tidy and suitable for the delivery of care. Regular health and safety, fire, legionella, electrical and environmental risk assessments were completed to ensure risks were identified and addressed.

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.

Recruitment processes included appropriate employment checks, and systems were in place to monitor professional registration, indemnity and staff immunisation status. Staff told us there were sufficient staffing levels to meet patient needs and described a supportive culture with visible and approachable leaders. New staff and trainees received structured induction and supervision, while appraisal, training and development processes helped maintain staff competence. Patient feedback about staff was consistently positive, with clinicians described as caring, knowledgeable and responsive.

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.

Cleaning schedules were in place and monitored and during the onsite visit, the premises were visibly clean and well maintained. Clinical areas were appropriately equipped with handwashing facilities, personal protective equipment, and areas for the safe disposal of waste. Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control (IPC) and there was a dedicated IPC lead. The service’s IPC lead conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance and acted where necessary to mitigate any identified risks. Staff vaccination programmes were monitored and the provider continued to promote vaccine uptake among relevant staff groups.

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