Riverside 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 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 remains the same.

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 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.

Practice leaders were aware of the needs of the local population and understood how these had changed following the merger with another practice.

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.

Staff told us leaders in the practice was approachable and responded to any concerns raised. Staff also told us leaders modelled the values of the practice. We saw that practice leaders had sought feedback from all staff about changes within the practice. Staff wellbeing was considered by practice leaders. For example, team building activities took place multiple times a year, and a new outdoor rest area had been put into place for staff.

Personal safety devices were available to all staff when lone working or conducting home visits.

The practice did not have an established Freedom to Speak Up Guardian which all staff were aware of. Staff did however tell us they felt able to speak up and that leaders were visible. During the inspection, we highlighted to practice leaders that the Freedom to Speak Up Guardian named on their poster was no longer within that role. Following the assessment, practice leaders took steps to put a Freedom to Speak Up Guardian into place and inform all staff of this.

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

Policies and procedures to promote diversity and equality were in place. Adjustments had been made to ensure all staff were valued, for example we saw adjustments to support disabled staff were in place.

The service did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance.

Policies and procedures did not always include planned review dates or timeframes. Practice leaders held a spreadsheet which was used to record when policies had been reviewed and their due date for next review. We saw that this was not accurate against what had been written in the policies themselves. We reviewed 1 policy which contained information generated by artificial intelligence, that was not relevant to the policy. This was highlighted to practice leaders and was removed on the day of the inspection.

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.

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

Staff conducted a weekly ward round of care home patients and maintained good relationships with local care homes.

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.

Practice leaders told us they prioritised and encouraged staff development. Training was offered to staff which increased service provision. For example, an advanced nurse practitioner had been trained to deliver minor surgery and joint injection appointments.

Practice leaders were involved in research and led on research for the local GP federation. The practice was a Commercial Research Development Hub.

Practice leaders were committed to gathering feedback from people and reviewing processes to identify improvements. For example, staff had identified there were delays in referrals for people with suspected ADHD due to a digital link being sent to patients to print their own referral forms. Practice leaders recognised that access to printing services was acting as a barrier to a referral and changed the process, so all forms were printed by the practice at the time of the appointment. Weekly meetings were held with all staff who were involved in developing the new process.

There was a PPG in place with 149 members. PPG members were able to attend meetings in person and online. We saw evidence of changes that had been made a result of PPG feedback. For example, the PPG had suggested that appointments for flu vaccinations should be available to book online. This had been implemented by the practice.

There was a programme of audits in place to review clinical practice. For example, an audit of all minor surgeries. Outcomes of audits were documented. In this case, practice leaders found that 100% of minor surgeries conducted had been done so in accordance with legislation and individual patient need.