Castle Mead 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 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 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 had effective arrangements in place to identify, monitor and mitigate risks associated with the premises and care environment. Regular health and safety assessments and audits were completed by staff and leaders to ensure risks were identified and managed appropriately. Arrangements were in place to ensure facilities, equipment and technology were safe, maintained and fit for purpose, supported by established maintenance contracts. We saw evidence that fire safety measures were routinely monitored, including regular alarm testing and evacuation drills. Systems were also in place to ensure the secure storage and management of prescription stationery. In addition, the service maintained a business continuity plan, which was reviewed regularly and outlined the actions required to support the continued delivery of services in the event of disruption.

The service generally had qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. However, records showed that not all mandatory training was up to date at the time of the assessment.

They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. The service employed people in a wide range of clinical and non-clinical roles, including GPs, nurses and administrators. At the time of the inspection, training records indicated that not all staff had completed mandatory training, and some records were not up to date. However, the practice assured us this was linked to the migration from its existing training platform to a new integrated learning management system and the concurrent transition from paper-based to digital staff records. The service had plans in place to review and reconcile training records and strengthen oversight of mandatory training compliance. The service generally had sufficient skilled and experienced staff to meet patients' needs. However, systems for monitoring and assuring mandatory training compliance were not fully effective at the time of the assessment.

The service followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, in line with legal requirements. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining professional references and carrying out criminal records checks.

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. During our onsite visit, the service's premises and a sample of equipment we reviewed were visibly clean.

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

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