Earls Barton 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 that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. Staff did not consistently protect people from abuse and improper treatment. Staff did not always assess risks to people's health and safety or mitigate them where identified. Governance systems and audits were not effective in identifying or addressing areas for improvement. This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as requires improvement.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Leaders had a detailed vision and values for the service. Some staff told us they felt engaged by leaders at the service. They told us they were listened to and had contributed to the development of the service. However, some staff told us they felt communication between staff and leaders could be improved and did not always feel listened to. Some staff also told us that leaders were not always in the practice for support, and they did not feel comfortable sharing personal and confidential information. Staff were encouraged to keep their knowledge and skills up to date in line with continued professional development to support the service. Leaders informed us there was a strong emphasis on the safety and well-being of staff.

Not all leaders consistently demonstrated the culture and values of the workforce and the organisation. Some staff told us that leaders were not always approachable and did not respond in a timely manner to concerns raised. The practice had recently joined the primary care network and were still in the early stages of developing effective relationships with other practices to support the delivery of high-quality care. However, staff told us that some members of the leadership team were supportive and open to feedback. During our on-site visit, leaders acknowledged the feedback received and expressed a clear commitment to improving communication, visibility, and inclusivity within the team. There was evidence that leaders were beginning to take steps towards fostering a more collaborative and transparent culture.

The practice had established Freedom to Speak up arrangements with other practices in the primary care network. Staff were aware of how to raise concerns and felt confident they would be dealt with appropriately.

The practice actively promoted equality and diversity. Staff had access to an equality, diversity, and inclusion policy and had completed relevant training. Newly recruited staff completed a monitoring form, so the service was aware of the diversity of their workforce.

During our clinical searches and on-site visit, we identified some gaps and areas requiring improvement. The service did not always have full oversight to ensure tasks were completed in line with national guidance, particularly in relation to IPC audits. While actions from meetings were recorded, not all staff had access to the minutes. For example, part-time staff told us they did not always receive meeting minutes if they were not present on the day. Following these issues being identified, the service took prompt action and implemented new processes to reduce risks and strengthen oversight. While actions from meetings were recorded, not all staff had access to the minutes.
Patient confidentiality and information security were well understood and consistently upheld. Staff told us that learning and development opportunities were identified during annual appraisals and that appropriate training was provided. Staff were encouraged to attend meetings where updates and new information were shared. There were processes in place to manage risks, issues, and performance, and there was evidence of systems that supported learning, continuous improvement, and innovation. Staff had access to all relevant policies and procedures.
 

Leaders told us they engaged regularly with services to which they made referrals, seeking feedback on the quality and appropriateness of those referrals. There was no evidence to show that the practice worked or had established relationships with other practices to share and improve outcomes. However, staff views and concerns were encouraged, heard, and acted upon to help shape the service and its culture. Leaders acknowledged that they were still in the process of building relationships with other practices and expressed optimism that these partnerships would strengthen over time.

The service worked within a multi-disciplinary team to provide the right support for everyone. The service actively participated in regular meetings where people’s care and treatment needs were discussed to improve their outcomes. There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement within the service. The service made use of internal and external reviews of incidents and complaints. Learning was shared and used to make improvements.