Cherry Medical 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 service’s leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care and promoted an open and 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 had created a positive, inclusive, and learning-focused culture, with strong staff engagement, recognition of achievements, and commitment to training as a teaching practice. There was a clear sense of pride and shared purpose, supported by strong performance and a reputation for high-quality care within the local system.

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 roles, responsibilities, and accountability systems; however, more formal governance arrangements were required. Overall, decisions were informed by available risk, performance, and outcome data, which was appropriately shared when necessary. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared 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. Governance systems were in place, including regular meetings, audits, safety processes, and collaboration across the PCN, with leaders demonstrating commitment to continuous improvement and investment in services and staff wellbeing. However, gaps in formal governance arrangements, including policy tracking, risk assessment oversight, and audit documentation, limited full assurance; in addition, the practice had not displayed its CQC rating in line with regulatory requirements, although this was rectified on the day of inspection.

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.