Crusader 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 assessed 2 quality statements from this key question. Our rating for this key question is good. We found safety was well managed, staff and leaders took seriously all concerns that arose which were well documented. When things went wrong, staff acted to ensure people remained safe. We saw infection control and cleaning measures had recently been updated and actions had been taken to improve and manage their processes. Safeguarding processes were clearly embedded, and staff had received the training specific for their role and could identify the processes to follow when dealing with any safeguarding concerns.

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.

Staff told us there was a proactive and positive culture of safety. Safety events were investigated and reported through staff meetings to learn lessons and reduce the risk of recurrence.

The provider had processes for staff to report incidents, near misses and safety events. There was a system to record and investigate complaints when things went wrong. We found learning from incidents and complaints resulted in actions that improved patient care and outcomes. For example, verbal instructions for a medication change differed from written instructions received. Learning from this incident was discussed and staff were reminded not to make changes on verbal instructions and wait for written confirmation of changes.

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.

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

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

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Staff involved people when reviewing their medicines and helped them understand how to manage their medicines safely. People knew what to do and who to contact if their condition did not improve or they experienced any unexpected symptoms.

Staff received regular medicines management training and felt confident to manage, administer and record the use of medicines. Medicines-related stationery was appropriately stored and secured. During the remote searches we carried out on the patient record system as part of the assessment, we identified that staff followed current clinical guidelines. This ensured they prescribed all medicines safely and patients received regular, appropriate and timely medicine reviews and monitoring.

Staff managed medicines safely and regularly checked the stock levels, expiry dates, and storage temperatures for all medicines including emergency medicines, vaccines, and controlled drugs. Staff stored medical gases, such as oxygen, safely and completed the appropriate safety risk assessments.

The provider had effective systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls. Staff followed established processes to ensure people prescribed medicines with specific monitoring needs received the recommended observations.

Staff took steps to ensure they prescribed medicines appropriately to optimise care outcomes, this included antibiotic stewardship. This was confirmed when we reviewed the prescribing data as part of our assessment. For example, the number of antimicrobial's issued by the provider was equal to local and national averages. We saw regular clinical auditing of clinical prescribing that was focused on improving care and treatment.