The Longcroft Clinic

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

This is the first assessment for this provider under our new ways of reporting. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always well-led and management and leadership were inconsistent.

Leaders and managers did not have full oversight of systems and processes to promote effective and safe service provision. Governance systems and processes had been developed but some were not working as intended. Processes in place did not demonstrate the partners had full oversight of the practice. This included mandatory training, the central recording of information from complaints and significant event, shared learning and policies being up to date and holding correct and relevant information. When things went wrong leaders ensured appropriate actions were taken, however, management processes did not always support sustained learning.

A range of risk assessments had been completed. However, we found some action plans were not accessible, had not been updated and were not centrally recorded or minuted as to having been discussed in meeting.

Feedback from staff was mixed and we found that processes for staff to speak up were not embedded or working as intended.

This service scored 54 (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 and 5-year strategy. 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.

The service understood the needs of the local population and worked with partner agencies such as the primary care network (PCN) and charitable organisations to address current and future challenges.

We noted that the 5-year plan included Relocation and Infrastructure Modernisation. Leaders informed us of their intentions to develop plans for a new, purpose-built facility designed to meet the increasing needs of their patient population.

We had mixed responses from staff in relation to leaders being supportive and compassionate. Some staff told us they did not feel leaders listened to their views and felt that not all leaders were approachable. They told us they felt communication needed to be improved to ensure all staff were aware of updates and learning across the practice.

Staff told us there had not been a whole team meetings. Some staff told us they did not feel involved in strategic planning or received regular updates.

Other staff we spoke with told us leaders in the service were approachable and responded to any concerns raised. Staff also described examples of where leaders had supported them both professionally and personally. They told us they attended team meetings and discussions were held and their opinions taken into account.

We saw the leadership team worked with other GP practices in the PCN and were engaged in the development of primary care services within the local area.

Staff feedback we received during the inspection was mixed.We were provided with The Whistleblowing policy which included Freedom to Speak Up. We noted the document indicated that an independent Freedom to Speak Up Guardian had been appointed in March 2025.

However, staff did not always feel they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Some staff members told us of a bullying culture and others told us they had raised concerns, but these were not listened to.

We noted that Freedom to Speak Up training was not mandatory for staff.

We also received some positive feedback from staff regarding being supported and where leaders were visible and approachable and responded to any concerns raised.

We could not be assured that the processes in place were working as intended and allowed for staff to speak up without fear of retribution or that their concerns would be listened to and acted upon.

Policies and procedures to promote diversity and equality were in place but some contained incomplete information and were not working as intended. There were systems and processes to support the workforce, including human resource support. The Equality and Diversity policy referred to the Equality Act 2010. However, we noted that the policy and the equality monitoring form, did not include all the 9 "protected characteristics" covered by the Act. Training in equality and diversity was part of staff mandatory training. However, we noted that 50% of staff (16 out of 32) had completed the training in the last 2 weeks since announcing the CQC inspection. We could not be assured that the process of ensuring staff had sufficient time to complete equality and diversity training was embedded.

Some staff we spoke with told us they did not feel included in meetings or that they were included in the dissemination of important information regarding the practice. We could not be ensured there was an inclusive environment for all staff.

The service did not always have clear systems of accountability or good governance. Systems did not always work as intended and leaders therefore did not always act upon or have access to, the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

The service had undertaken a range of risk assessments prior to the inspection. These assessments showed a number of areas that needed to be addressed. However, the service did not have a formalised way of identifying and monitoring risk to ensure that those areas that had been identified were mitigated in a timely manner.

Staff could access all required policies and procedures. However, policies and procedures did not always reflect current practice or guidance for staff to follow. Policy review processes were not always clear or accurately recorded.

We found there was no clear governance oversight in place to ensure it was operating efficiently and effectively. For example, record showed 50% of staff had completed their training within the 2 weeks since we announced this inspection. We therefore could not be assured there was a robust oversight of staff training. Some policies did not contain enough information to be useful. Handwritten prescriptions pads were not stored securely, and an oxygen sign was not displayed where the oxygen was stored. Shared learning was not evidenced and actions from meetings and risk assessments were not always recorded.

The service had failed to identify through its own internal governance processes, that it had not fulfilled its responsibility in notifying CQC when there was a change in the service. The service had failed to notify CQC of changes to members of their GP partnership, the names of whom form a condition of their CQC registration. The service had failed to provide CQC with an accurate, up-to-date statement of purpose. A statement of purpose provides a clear overview of the service's operations, including who they are, what services they provide, where they provide them, and who the registered managers are and should be kept up to date when changes are made to the provider.

The service demonstrated a commitment to collaborative working, recognising its duty to engage with partners to ensure seamless service delivery. The provider worked effectively with external stakeholders, including care homes, and partner agencies, to develop and deliver high-quality, coordinated care.

There was an active patient participation group (PPG). Representatives we spoke with told us the meetings were extremely helpful. They were given the opportunity to share their feedback. They told us they felt the practice was keen to include the PPG at all levels, to help improve communication and inclusivity for all patients.

The practice and PPG organised an annual public event at which presentations were made on topical matters relevant to the patient group. We were informed feedback was collected from these events by the PPG. In addition, an annual Park Run was organised by the practice.

The service showed a commitment to continuous learning and improvement; however, the evidence of shared learning was not consistent or extended to all staff. Regular clinical meetings were held to review patient needs and discuss best practice. Completed audits evidenced areas for improvement, any appropriate actions taken and the positive outcomes for patients.

The provider worked collaboratively with stakeholders to improve the experience of people using the service and to support the wider needs of the local community.