Lindley Group Practice

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We looked for evidence that the practice’s leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Leaders demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement, using feedback from people using the service, families, and staff to inform service development. The practice was a training practice and demonstrated a strong education and learning ethos. The practice engaged positively in the assessment process and was responsive to feedback.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The mission of the practice was to provide consistent, high quality, patient centred care. Staff we spoke with were aware of the mission statement and we saw it was on the practice website. The practice had a business plan, but this was undated and it was unclear if it had been developed in collaboration with staff, people who use the service and external partners.

Staff reported a positive culture at the practice. Some staff gave examples of support they had been given by the practice, both personally and professionally.

The practice had an experienced leadership team in place. Leaders we spoke with were knowledgeable about issues and priorities of their patient demographic and what work was needed to drive patient outcomes. Staff told us that managers were visible and approachable and that they felt supported by them. Staff felt they worked well as a team to manage the day-to-day workload.

The practice fostered an open culture and encouraged staff to speak up if they had concerns or ideas for improvement. Staff told us they felt safe raising issues without fear of negative consequences. Regular team meetings and supervision sessions gave further opportunities for staff to talk openly about their experiences.

There were policies in place for Freedom to Speak Up and Duty of Candour. There was a nominated Freedom to Speak Up Guardian and all staff knew who this was. Staff also had access to an external Freedom to Speak Up Guardian. Whistleblowing and Being Open training formed part of the practice’s mandatory training schedule.

Staff understood the importance of creating an inclusive environment both within the workplace and in the care they delivered. All staff had undertaken equality and diversity training. Staff reported a positive and fair culture at the practice, with adequate support and regard for staff wellbeing.

There were systems and processes in place to support the safety and well-being of staff, which included training. For example, lone working, conflict resolution and bullying and harassment.

The practice had systems and processes to support governance, but we found gaps around safe and effective staffing and infection prevention and control (IPC).

There were nominated clinical and non-clinical leads for key areas whom staff could contact for advice and support. For example, safeguarding of adults and children, complaints and IPC. Staff we spoke with were clear about their role, responsibilities, and how they interacted with other staff. They told us they had access to policies and procedures to support them within their role and attended regular meetings where discussions about the practice, such as complaints and significant events, were discussed.

There were processes in place to ensure data management and security. The practice was registered as a data controller with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Staff took patient confidentiality and information security seriously. Staff we spoke with told us they followed the practice’s confidentiality policy when discussing patients’ treatments. This was to ensure that confidential information was kept private, for example, patient information was never on view and computers were locked when not in use. We saw that all staff had undertaken information governance and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) training.

There was a business continuity plan in place, which included supplier and staff contact details.

The practice understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for patients. We saw the practice attended regular primary care network (PCN) meetings. Leaders told us they used a range of methods to gather patient feedback. For example, from the National GP Patient Survey, Friends and Family Test (FFT), complaints and compliments. Staff told us they could provide feedback through meetings and annual appraisal.

At the time of our assessment, the Patient Participation Group (PPG) had not formally met since 2023. The practice planned to reconvene meetings in the new year. Feedback from the PPG echoed the frustrations and challenges highlighted by the practice team regarding the limitations of the premises, commenting that there was no room for expansion and the style and layout of the property made it difficult to fully support accessibility.

There were systems and processes for learning, continuous improvement and innovation. The practice engaged with the neighbouring practices in local current and future initiatives which included the Primary Care Network (PCN) (an approach to strengthening and redesigning primary care to focus on local population needs).

The practice had a comprehensive schedule of clinical audits and quality improvement initiatives, and a range of data was collected and reviewed to improve service delivery and drive outcomes for the patient population. For example, we saw reviews of incidents, patient feedback, audits and patient outcomes such as prescribing.

The practice was a training practice and demonstrated a strong education and learning ethos. Two of the GP Partners were GP trainers who supported GP registrars and medical students. At the time of our assessment there were 2 GP registrars but no medical students at the practice. The practice supported the apprenticeship scheme for reception and administrative roles.