Greenmoss Medical Centre

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 service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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

All staff had contributed to the development of the service’s vision and strategy, which was kept under review. Leaders monitored and reviewed progress against the delivery of their strategy. The service was aware of local challenges which affected their service, such as the projected increase in the local population over the coming years and worked with partner agencies to address these challenges. Staff and leaders actively promoted equality and diversity and worked to identify the causes of any workforce inequalities. They demonstrated a positive and compassionate listening culture that focused on learning and development, which was confirmed by staff feedback.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The service had clear responsibilities and roles but did not always have clear systems of accountability or good governance. For example, there was evidence of some training being monitored within departments but no system to ensure training for all staff was monitored and recorded. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, but did not always share this securely with others when appropriate.

All staff we spoke with were clear on their individual roles and responsibilities. Leaders proactively supported staff and regularly met with them to complete appraisals and performance reviews. The provider’s governance processes in relation to the quality statements we reviewed during this assessment were not always effective. For example, professional registrations checks had been carried out but not recorded and evidence retained. Staff could access all required policies and procedures, which were kept up to date and reflected latest guidance, however these had not been updated on the practice website. Leaders held regular meetings with staff, during which they discussed emerging risks and potential improvements to the service. Leaders clearly recorded any actions that arose from these meetings, but this was not always shared with all staff. Staff took confidentiality and information security seriously, which included verifying people’s identity during remote consultations. Staff submitted data and notifications to external agencies as required. Since our assessment we have seen evidence that the provider has resolved the issues we brought to their attention.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.