Markham Associates

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 found this practice was not providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations. We will be following up on our concerns to ensure the provider had made the required improvements.

During our inspection of this key question, we found a lack of systems or processes to enable the registered person to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the services being provided.

This resulted in a breach of Regulation 17 (good governance) and Regulation 18 (staffing) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014.

You can find more details of our concerns in the detailed findings below.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Shared direction and culture is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Freedom to speak up is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The practice had a governance system that included policies and procedures, which were accessible to staff, however they were not always reviewed and updated on a regular basis.

Systems and processes were not embedded across the staff team, which resulted in several concerns being identified including issues relating to recruitment, staff training and fire safety.

Staff were aware of the importance of protecting patients’ personal information. Staff password protected patients’ electronic care records, and paper records were stored securely and complied with General Data Protection Regulations.

Relevant policies and protocols were not in place for the use of closed-circuit television (CCTV).

There were effective processes for identifying and managing risks, investigating incidents and accidents, and for receiving and acting on safety alerts.

The practice had systems and processes for learning, quality assurance and continuous improvement. This included undertaking audits according to recognised guidance.

Concerns and complaints were responded to appropriately.

Staff feedback was obtained through meetings and informal discussions. They were encouraged to offer suggestions for improvements to the service, and they said these were listened to and acted upon, where appropriate.

The practice gathered feedback from patients, the public and external partners, and responded accordingly. For example, implemented online appointment booking to minimise long holds on the telephone.

The practice had taken steps to improve environmental sustainability. For example, reducing paper use through digital records and switching off equipment when not in use.

The judgement for Partnerships and communities is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.

The judgement for Learning, improvement and innovation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Well-led key question.