The Wall 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.

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 contracts to ensure the premises was maintained. Staff and leaders completed health and safety risk assessments and undertook audits to ensure they had identified and addressed all risks. We found the service used external contractors for risk assessments where necessary. We reviewed some specific risk assessments and found they were completed for gas and fire safety as well as legionella (a type of bacteria found in water systems). We saw actions from previous risk assessments were completed in a timely manner. Fire drills were completed twice a year and reviewed afterwards to identify any areas for improvement and staff had completed training in fire safety.

We also found water temperatures were tested regularly to ensure Legionella in water systems would be identified and prompt actions taken. Leaders had oversight of these systems and processes to ensure the premises remained safe for people using the service and these had operated effectively. 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 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. We sampled staff files for 3 members of staff and found all contained the information required by legislation. We also found there were processes to ensure staff completed induction programmes specific to their role when they joined the service.

We also saw evidence that staff had access to supervision day to day and formal supervision arrangements. These were in place for nursing and other non-medical clinical staff to support them and help them develop. Staff we spoke with confirmed these arrangements were supportive and we saw evidence of appraisal and 1 to 1 meeting which were also supportive of enabling staff to achieve their best at work as well as gaining further training, experience and qualifications.

The service employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included GPs, nurses, pharmacists and a phlebotomist. Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their training which the service had deemed mandatory and operated within their agreed areas of competence. We found staff received protected time to complete training and the service had systems and processes to decide the training requirements for roles, and which provided leaders with oversight of compliance. We looked at the training for 3 members of staff and found all the courses recommended in our publicly available guidance had been completed by these staff and only 1 course required by the service was overdue for 1 member of staff which showed the systems and processes were operating effectively and as the service intended.

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. 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. We noted the most recent audit in March 2026 had identified areas of non-compliance. None were high risk and they related to hand hygiene and safe management of clinical waste and equipment. This showed the service identified where standards and compliance could be improved and an action plan had been made to achieve the improvement. In the areas we inspected we observed actions had been completed. 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.