Dalston Medical Group

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 provider’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 practice 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.

Managers were aware of local workforce challenges, particularly in relation to GP recruitment. However, by supporting the training of GP registrars, foundation doctors and medical students, the practice was better placed to maintain staffing levels and support service delivery within the local area.

Staff had previously contributed to the development of the provider’s vision and strategy, which was kept under review. Leaders monitored progress against the delivery of the strategy.

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 practice had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. 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 about their individual roles and responsibilities. Staff told us the leaders had an “open-door” policy and were responsive and available to provide support when needed. Leaders proactively supported staff and regularly met with them to complete appraisals and performance reviews. There was a strong emphasis on staff wellbeing, with 1 of the partners taking an active lead role within the practice.

The provider had established governance processes for most of the quality statements reviewed during this assessment. However, governance arrangements relating to cleaning schedules and the management of clinical stock required further strengthening to ensure consistent oversight and monitoring. Managers regularly reviewed significant events and complaints to identify themes, trends and opportunities for improvement. Staff could access all required policies and procedures, which were kept up to date and reflected latest guidance.

Leaders held regular meetings with staff, during which emerging risks and opportunities to improve the practice were discussed. Actions arising from these meetings were recorded and shared with staff. However, while clinical meetings had taken place and minutes were maintained, our review of the previous 4 sets of meeting minutes, dating from 26 November 2025, identified no discussion of significant events, complaints, or the learning arising from these. While these topics were discussed at separate weekly practice business meetings, attendance differed between the 2 forums. As a result, there was a risk that organisational learning from significant events and complaints was not consistently shared with all relevant staff. Following our assessment feedback managers undertook a comprehensive review of meeting agendas and frequency and implemented changes to reduce overlap, improve communication and strengthen the sharing of learning across the practice.

Recruitment processes were effective, with appropriate checks carried out for new staff. Staff were aware of their training requirements, and all mandatory training at the time of the assessment was up to date.

Staff took confidentiality and information security seriously, which included verifying people’s identity during remote consultations.

Staff submitted data and notifications to external agencies as required.

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.