The Euxton Medical 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.

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 practice had systems for tracking prescription stationery; however access was not currently restricted to authorised individuals, for example prescription pads were left in unlocked printers in unlocked rooms.

Records showed fire alarms were routinely tested, and the practice had appointed their own fire marshals to direct patients and staff in the event of a fire. Staff completed fire safety training. However a fire drill had not been completed in the past 12 months and the doors within the building were not fire proof compatible. During the assessment, the provider confirmed that a business plan was in place to replace the doors.

Electrical equipment had been calibrated and tested.

We observed that the practice was accessible for all people and included space for wheelchairs and prams.

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 medical secretaries. Leaders ensured the majority of 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 were in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining of professional references and a criminal records check.

Staff appraisals had not been completed within the last 2 years.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. 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.

The practice had an infection control policy in place and a designated infection, prevention and control (IPC) lead. We found that a more detailed IPC audit could be put in place to capture the detail of the audits undertaken by the IPC lead. This was addressed during the assessment.

Staff had completed relevant infection control training. Clinical waste procedures were in place.

Sharps waste bins were safely managed, and staff knew what to do in the event of a needlestick injury.

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