Newington Road Surgery Limited Also known as Newington Road Surgery

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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This service scored 62 (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 had contributed to the development of the practice vision and strategy, which was kept under review.

The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

The service carried out annual staff surveys to understand staff views on key areas such as resources, leadership, raising concerns, and the importance placed on health and safety. The latest staff survey results from February 2026 showed that staff were positive about the leadership, felt confident in performing their roles, and believed they were treated equally. Sixty-six percent of staff agreed they had the right tools to enable them to do a great job. However, we did not see evidence of any follow up actions in response to the findings to improve positive outcomes for staff.

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The service had established systems and processes to encourage and support staff to speak up. The service had designated Freedom to Speak Up Champions, offering staff a confidential route to raise concerns internally or externally. All concerns raised were recorded, investigated, and addressed, with learning shared to support improvement. Staff reported they knew how to raise concerns and were aware of the different options available to them for speaking up.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff had completed mandatory equality, diversity and inclusion training. Staff told us they felt respected and valued in the team. The service supported flexible working arrangements, for example for staff who were carers, parents and staff with health conditions. Staff also reported confidence that any requests for reasonable adjustments would be considered sensitively and that leaders were approachable and responsive to individual needs.

The service did not have clear responsibilities and systems of accountability. They did not always act on the best information about risk.

Governance systems were not operating effectively to ensure risks to people using the service were identified and mitigated. For example, systems to identify and act on fire safety risks were not fully embedded.

The service did not operate necessary systems to identify and mitigate risks to ensure they could respond appropriately to medical emergencies. Risk assessments implemented did not ensure appropriate action was identified. For example, the service did not hold all recommended emergency medicines. Risk assessments identified the use of alternative medicines as mitigation. However, the service had not ensured they had access to the alternative medicines described.

Policies did not always contain necessary guidance to support staff. For example, the complaints policy did not give necessary guidance to staff to ensure consent was obtained and recorded should complaints be resolved verbally.

Systems to support the management of medicines were not fully embedded. Not all people had received care and treatment in line with national guidelines, and prescription stationery was not fully monitored to ensure its security.

While the service acted in response to the concerns raised during assessment, it was too early to determine if new processes or actions taken to mitigate risk, were effective or embedded in practice.

However, we saw the service now had appropriate systems to support the monitoring of legionella; oversight of high-risk medicines, long-term conditions and MHRA safety alerts had improved; and the service had improved systems to support quality improvement activity.

Leaders and managers supported staff and all staff we spoke with were clear on their individual roles and responsibilities. Managers met with staff regularly to complete appraisals and performance reviews. Staff could access all required policies and procedures. Managers held regular meetings with staff, during which they discussed clinical concerns and emerging risks. Managers recorded any actions arising from these meetings and shared these with staff. Staff took confidentiality and information security seriously. Lessons were learned from significant events and complaints, to help prevent similar incidents from reoccurring.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The service worked with other practices within their primary care network to offer extended access and vaccination programmes.

Staff engaged with local health and care organisations, including community services.

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.

The service reviewed complaints, significant events and audits, sharing learning with staff to support reflection and improvement. Actions were implemented in response to identified issues demonstrating a commitment to continuous improvement.