Dr Vishwambhar Sinha

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

Welookedfor 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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to regulation 17 (good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice did not have a clear shared vision and strategy. Staff and leaders were unaware of the practice’s shared vision or set of values. Following our site visit the provider sent us a document outlining their mission statement.

The service was aware of local challenges which affected their service. Staff and leaders actively promoted equality and diversity and worked to identify the causes of any workforce inequalities.

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 provider’s governance process had not identified that improvements were required in some areas of the practice including staff training records, staff immunisations and safe environments.

Leaders held regular meetings with staff, and we reviewed minutes of practice and multidisciplinary team meetings. We were told the clinical team held a daily huddle, however there was no formal record of clinical team meetings.

Policies and procedures were accessible to staff and kept up to date. Staff were clear on their own roles and the responsibilities of other staff members and felt supported by practice leaders.

Patient participation group (PPG) members spoke positively about meetings held with the practice, these were used for patients to raise concerns and for the practice to communicate changes with patients.

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.