Courtside Surgery

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 remains the same.

This service scored 79 (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, human rights, diversity, inclusion and engagement. Staff and leaders demonstrated an exceptional understanding of the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. 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, such as the projected increase in the local population over the coming years and worked with partner agencies to address these challenges. 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.

Leaders had introduced an automated proactive monitoring software which audited the electronic database against up-to-date national clinical guidelines. The leaders were forward-thinking, embracing technology to support their clinical care. But due to the scope of the return to good and outstanding project we have no evidence to confirm this.

The service demonstrated a strong shared direction by embedding regular, open communication channels across the entire workforce. Monthly 'ask a partner anything' sessions ensured that non-clinical and clinical staff were aligned with the service’s vision. Staff feedback indicated these sessions offered an easy way to speak directly with senior partners and they felt this open communication channel had built high levels of trust, ensuring all teams clearly understood the service's priorities.

Leaders demonstrated an active commitment to workforce development by maintaining an appraisal and performance review framework. The service demonstrated an 89% completion rate for staff appraisals, with the remaining sessions already formally scheduled. Staff feedback showed this proactive oversight ensured staff felt supported, performance was effectively monitored, and training needs were regularly identified.

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 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 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 on their individual roles and responsibilities. Clinical staff accurately identified their designated leads for key governance areas, including safeguarding and infection control. Staff confirmed they knew how and where to escalate clinical or operational risks within the service.

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 they discussed emerging risks and potential improvements to the service. Actions were recorded from these meetings and shared with staff for full awareness. 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.

Based on our review of meeting minutes and feedback from staff interviews, team members consistently attended scheduled safeguarding and multi-disciplinary team meetings, creating a reliable communication pathway for managing complex cases.

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.