Dr Ahmad and Partners Also known as Alexander House Health 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 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 has changed to requires improvement.

This service scored 62 (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, human rights, diversity, inclusion and engagement. Staff and leaders understood the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff described the practice vision as being caring and focused on looking after patients. Regular staff meetings and monthly clinical meetings were reported. Staff appeared committed to providing patient centred care and supporting colleagues during periods of increased demand.

All staff had contributed to the development of the service’s vision and strategy, which was kept under review. Leaders monitored and reviewed progress against the delivery of their strategy. 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. They demonstrated a positive and compassionate listening culture that focused on learning and development.

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 service did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Governance systems were not consistently effective. Concerns were identified regarding oversight of infection prevention and control, health and safety arrangements, prescription security, training records, incident management. Recruitment systems were also ineffective, with processes lacking to ensure recruitment practices and personnel files met the requirements of Schedule 3 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

A recent leak that resulted in the loss of old financial records had not been reported as an incident. A coroner-related case had not been recorded as a significant incident, despite the incident reporting policy listing relevant events that should be considered. There was limited evidence that significant events were consistently discussed and learning embedded within team meetings. Clinical meeting records were incomplete or not always documented. Governance oversight of training, recruitment and risk management was not always in place.

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

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.