Camelford 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
This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.
The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance because governance arrangements were not always effective in providing assurance that risks relating to infection prevention and control, environmental safety, medicines management, staff records and organisational learning were consistently identified, monitored and mitigated.
 

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 and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.
Staff consistently described a positive and supportive culture in their feedback to us during the assessment process. Staff understood the service's vision and values and spoke positively about working as part of a team focused on meeting the needs of the local population. Leaders demonstrated awareness of the strategic challenges facing the service, including premises limitations and maintaining access across rural branch sites.
Leaders described the importance of involving staff in the service’s strategy and direction. Staff told us they felt informed about developments within the service, although some staff reported limited involvement in developing the strategy.
 

The service had inclusive leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.
Staff consistently described leaders and managers as approachable, visible and supportive. Staff told us they felt able to seek advice, raise concerns and discuss challenges. Feedback from both the service’s staff survey and from staff during our assessment process reflected these views.
The service had clear lines of responsibility to support capable leadership. The service had job descriptions for all staff and staff demonstrated an understanding of their roles and responsibilities.
 

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.
Staff understood the principles of whistleblowing and told us they would feel comfortable raising concerns. Staff felt concerns would be welcomed and acted upon and described leaders as approachable and supportive. Leaders promoted an open-door culture and encouraged staff to raise concerns or discuss issues as they arose.
The service had whistleblowing and Freedom to Speak Up (FTSU) policies in place and staff were aware of the available routes for raising concerns.
 

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.
The service had policies to support an inclusive working environment such as equality and diversity. Staff had completed equality and diversity training and told us they had opportunities to contribute to meetings and share their views.
The service made reasonable adjustments to support staff where required. Examples included providing specialist equipment, technology support and workstation adaptations.
 

The service did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.
Leaders utilised an electronic governance system and a policy library which staff could access. Staff told us they could access the policies and procedures required to undertake their roles. The service had clear lines of responsibility and leadership across the organisation such as lead roles for IPC and safeguarding and staff knew who these were. Leaders monitored quality and performance through a range of governance processes including clinical meetings and clinical audit activity, patient feedback and staff feedback.
However, whilst leaders had established governance systems and processes, these were not always effective in providing assurance that risks were consistently identified, monitored and addressed.
The service had processes for the management of significant events and complaints. However, prior to the inspection, thematic reviews and trend analysis had not routinely been undertaken to support wider organisational learning and improvement.
Governance arrangements relating to IPC were not always effective. Leaders could not always demonstrate effective oversight of IPC risks across all sites, and actions arising from audits and risk assessments were not consistently documented, monitored or evidenced as completed.
Staff’s employment records did not consistently contain health declarations.
Governance arrangements relating to medicines were not always effective. Leaders could not always demonstrate that risks relating to medicines security, emergency medicines and emergency equipment had been fully assessed and mitigated.
Governance systems required strengthening to ensure risks were consistently identified, monitored and mitigated across all sites. Leaders were responsive to feedback and took action during and after the assessment; however, further work was needed to ensure improvements were fully embedded.
 

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.
The service worked collaboratively with other teams and services including; district nursing teams, adult social care, the police, community providers and palliative care services. They worked in partnership through multiprofessionals meetings such as safeguarding and complex care to deliver positive outcomes. Staff spoke positively about delivering care that was centred on the needs of people using the service.
 

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.
Leaders used quality improvement activity, audits and peoples feedback to review services and identify opportunities to improve outcomes and patient experience.
The service had implemented clinical protocols and templates to support consistent decision making such as improvements to the management of electrocardiogram requests (ECG is a test used to assess the electrical activity and rhythm of the heart requests) and systems to monitor and respond to medicine safety alerts.
The service had implemented digitalisation of new patient registration processes and an artificial intelligence scribe to support clinicians and this was in the process of being implemented across the service.