Harlow Road 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 people were protected from 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.

Staff identified and managed environmental risks effectively. Facilities and equipment were clean, well maintained, and suitable for service delivery, with appropriate risk assessments and maintenance contracts in place. A business continuity plan was established and regularly reviewed to ensure service resilience during disruptions. All staff had completed health and safety training; however, this was not refreshed annually.

The leaders followed safe recruitment procedures, and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were in place, and all the required pre-employment checks completed. However, the DBS checks were not always carried out prior to a member of staff commencing work, and the policy stated the checks were discretionary for the non-clinical staff. Following the assessment the practice manager immediately responded to these issues.

Staff confirmed they received a full induction, and managers ensured ongoing training and regular appraisals to support safe care.

The leaders made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Clinical and non-clinical staff had completed mandatory training and received an annual appraisal. The practice nurse, healthcare assistant, locum GPs and pharmacist had their patient consultation records regularly reviewed by the lead GP to ensure clinical competence.

The staff effectively assessed and managed infection risks. They promptly identified and controlled potential spread, sharing concerns with relevant agencies. During the onsite visit, the practice premises and sampled equipment were observed to be visibly clean. A designated infection prevention and control lead was in place, and all staff had received appropriate training. Cleaning schedules were followed, and audits and risk assessments were completed annually with actions taken to reduce risks. However, although the infection control lead, carried out regular spot checks these were not recorded.

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