Greystoke 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 provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider 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. The provider had a business continuity plan which was regularly reviewed and outlined how the practice should continue to operate in the event of a disruption. Staff we spoke with were able to recall a national disruption to a computer system that was used within the practice and demonstrated that the practice had still been able to function during this time due to their preparedness.

The provider 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 provider employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles. Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their training which the provider had deemed mandatory and operated within their agreed areas of competence. Staff told us that they felt supported by leaders to attend training that aligned with their clinical interests. The provider 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.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The provider had cleaning schedules available, which outlined how staff should clean the building and its equipment. The provider demonstrated how these were monitored for completion to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements. During our onsite visit, the provider's premises and a sample of equipment reviewed was noted to be visibly clean. The provider’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. Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control. Staff we spoke with were able to provide an example of a time they responded to a risk of infection of a notifiable disease.

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