Dr Rajiv Goel Also known as The Riverside 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 service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

We found that the service’s leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. Governance processes were effective, and staff felt supported by leaders who were visible and approachable. The provider had systems to manage current and future performance and risks to the quality of the service and had taken steps to make service improvements.

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 and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Leaders told us they had maintained an open-door policy, and staff feedback indicated that leaders were approachable. Staff said that if they had any concerns, they had felt safe to raise them and believed they would be listened to. When patients had been affected by things that went wrong, they had received an apology and had been informed of any resulting actions.

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. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.Due to the processes in place, leaders were aware of issues outside their direct line of responsibility. The service had policies and procedures which supported a learning culture. The service offered apologies to people, learned lessons from individual concerns and complaints, and took action to improve the quality of care. Staff had clear roles and responsibilities and had shown flexibility to meet patients' needs.Staff told us that leaders were approachable and had responded to concerns raised. Staff also told us that leaders had modelled the values of the service.

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up, and their voice would be heard.

Staff we spoke with felt that leaders were approachable, listened, and acted in response to matters raised. They told us they did not fear repercussions for speaking up. Processes had also ensured that when things went wrong, people had received an apology and had been informed of actions taken to prevent recurrence.

However, the service's whistleblowing policy lacked a key best practice safeguard to embed and protect this culture. It did not identify an external, independent Freedom to Speak Up Guardian. As a result, the formal mechanism for speaking up did not provide a confidential, supportive intermediary step, instead directing staff to formal regulators.Following the factual accuracy process, the provider demonstrated that this information the information about an external Guardian was cascaded to all practice staff in June 2024, formally discussed at their Patient Participation Group meeting in July 2024, and reiterated in practice meetings, including discussions around additional external whistleblowing support via their PCN Clinical Lead.

Nevertheless, the absence of this information in the formal policymeant the documented process did not provide a confidential, intermediary step, instead directing staff directly to formal regulators. This created a gap, as staff might not refer to meeting minutes when needing to raise a sensitive concern. Therefore, the positive culture reported was not yet fully secured by a robust, proactive governance framework.

The service demonstrated a strong commitment to diversity within its workforce. Leaders actively promoted an inclusive and fair culture, and staff told us they worked well together and supported one another. There were clear processes for raising concerns, including opportunities during meetings, supervision, appraisals, and through staff surveys.All staff had completed equality and diversity training, and the service had policies and procedures in place to promote diversity and equality.

The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

Leaders and managers supported staff, and all staff we spoke with were clear on their individual roles and responsibilities. Managers met with staff to complete appraisals and performance reviews. The provider demonstrated that appraisals followed a structured process. This included pre-appraisal self-reflection, a formal discussion, and documented outcomes covering learning needs, training requirements, and personalised development plans. Previous years' objectives were reviewed and carried forward.

The provider had established governance processes that were appropriate for their service. Staff could access all required policies and procedures. Managers held regular practice meetings with staff, during which they discussed clinical concerns and emerging risks. Managers clearly recorded any actions arising from these meetings and ensured they shared these with staff. Staff took patient confidentiality and information security seriously, supported by relevant policies and procedures.

The service understood its 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 provider worked with other practices within their primary care network to offer extended access.

In partnership with a local charity, the service ran a weekly walking group. They also shared plans to introduce a regular coffee afternoon for patients and a weekly digital support drop-in clinic.

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation, and improvement across the organisation and local system. We observed evidence of shared learning and staff involvement at all levels. Leaders had regularly reviewed the service’s assurance systems. Clinical audits and quality improvement processes had positively impacted the quality of the service.

The leadership team had managed clinical supervision and documented all supervision meetings. The provider had a well-established Patient Participation Group which they were actively trying to grow. Feedback had been positive, and we were told the group had felt involved and listened to. They met regularly and had been able to submit ideas.

The provider had implemented a range of quality improvement protocols to drive service improvements, which included a review of the appointment system.

The leadership team had managed clinical supervision and documented all supervision meetings. All staff were encouraged to put forward and trial new ways of working.

The provider was applying to become an HIV Confident Surgery. They also collaborated with the local council to promote recycling and progressed from achieving the Bronze standard in the Green Toolkit in 2024 to aiming for Silver.