Park Medical Centre

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.

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas. Where improvement themes were identified in any area, the practice completed audits to test improvement measures. There were numerous audits conducted per annum, these included medicine related audits, access, complaints, significant events, clinical audits and patient feedback.

This service scored 82 (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 very clear shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and an exceptional understanding of the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

All staff had contributed to the development of the practice vision and strategy, which was kept under review.

The service maintained a vision and values statement focused on, “Working with patients to help them improve their health. Leading a holistic care approach within the Leek healthcare network. Using technology effectively to make our services and interactions with patients more efficient and impactful.” They had developed a 2025-2028 statement which included their, “commitment to delivering exceptional, continuous care through innovation and further develop a workplace where our team feels valued and supported.”

We found there was strong clear leadership. We saw colleagues listened to their staff at all levels, seeking to learn what was working, what they were proud of, as well as any concerns or improvement suggestions. There was diversity of thought and expertise throughout the teams. The service promoted learning from quality improvement projects. Staff had access to clinical supervision, learning and development events as well as educational support and all staff had access to online learning systems. The service provided regular reflective practice sessions and was a training and research practice.

The practice had developed structured monitoring processes for patients prescribed medicines requiring safety monitoring and shared these systems with neighbouring practices in the Primary Care Network. This significantly contributed to streamlined working methods such as, avoiding duplication, improved communication with patients' and increased engagement in long term conditions management.

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 were approachable and responded to any concerns raised. Staff also told us leaders modelled the values of the practice. We saw the leadership team worked with other practices in the primary care network and were engaged in the development of primary care services within the local area.

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

The practice had established Freedom to Speak up arrangements with other practices in the primary care network. Staff were aware of how to raise concerns. Staff feedback to the CQC and the staff we spoke with comprising both clinical and non-clinical team members, all reported if they raised a concern, it would be welcomed and action taken. Staff we spoke with were aware of freedom to speak up, had been in receipt of training and policies were available which included internal and external contact details and notices were posted within the practice.

The service strongly valued diversity in their workforce. They had an inclusive and fair culture which had improved equality and equity for people who work for them.

Policies and procedures to promote diversity and equality were in place. We saw senior leaders had processes in place to address concerns related to discrimination. We saw reasonable adjustments had been considered for the practice staff for example, in the use of certain supportive equipment staff used and flexible working arrangements to support staff were in place.

There were several examples of collaborative working with external providers for the benefit of patients. One example included working with the Integrated Care Board and an external specialist support group on the behavioural science of disengaged patients. This external group aimed to utilise analytic capabilities and experience in leveraging diverse datasets to gain insights into population behaviours. This included an understanding of how people judge situations and make everyday life decisions and how they may be influenced to make decisions that create better outcomes and benefit individuals or society.

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 regularly to complete appraisals and performance reviews. The provider had established governance processes that were appropriate for their service. Staff could access all required policies and procedures. The service held a variety of meetings with their staff. This included whole practice, nurse, Primary Care Network, multi-disciplinary, palliative care, the patient participation group and staff training days. The regular whole practice meetings with staff included regular agenda items such as clinical updates 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.

Staff told us that their wellbeing was considered, and their views respected, and concerns acted upon. These included, for example, reasonable adjustments and support provisions for staff undergoing medical treatment, as well as for those requiring short-term assistance due to family-related responsibilities.

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

The provider worked with other practices within their primary care network to offer extended access, and flu and covid vaccination programmes. Staff had made adjustments to improve coordination of their service with community healthcare services, including those at higher risk of hospital admission.

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 practice had a quality improvement plan in place to help drive improvements in services This focussed on the appointment system. All staff were encouraged to put forward and test out new ways of working.

Innovation was embedded within wider quality improvement activities, including audits and strategic partnerships aimed at improving patient outcomes. This was illustrated by the recent collaboration with a behavioural science group, which supported initiatives to engage and encourage participation amongst the potentially disengaged patient groups.‑improvement activities, including audits and strategic partnerships aimed at improving patient outcomes. This was illustrated by the recent collaboration with a behavioural science group, which supported initiatives to engage and encourage participation among

Where improvement themes were identified in any area, the practice completed audits to test improvement measures. There were numerous audits conducted per annum, these included medicine related audits, access, complaints, significant events, clinical audits and patient feedback.

The practice was actively involved in portfolio research with National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) which is funded by Department of Health and Scocial Care (DHSE). .

The practice holds Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research Ready accreditation, demonstrating compliance with recognised research governance standards. Research Ready accrediation is the RCGP’s quality assurance and accreditation programme for research-active GP practices in the UK, providing guidance, training, and certification to support safe and effective primary care research. The practice also served as the NIHR research hub for the Leek and Biddulph Primary Care Network, supporting the delivery of research studies across primary care. The practice is an accredited GP training site, contributing to undergraduate nursing and postgraduate medical education. These activities support primary care workforce development and encourage evidence-based clinical practice.

Park Medical Centre contributed to improvement beyond the practice through its involvement in research, education and quality improvement initiatives across the local system. As the NIHR role, the practice supportsed neighbouring practices to participate in research studies and share learning from implementation. Leaders described how research activity, medicines safety work and service redesign initiatives are shared across the Primary Care Network to support wider improvement in patient care.