The Farley Road Medical Practice

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 75 (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. Most staff we received feedback from confirmed that they were aware of the vision and had an opportunity to contribute to it. Leaders monitored and reviewed progress against the delivery of their strategy. They told us their slogan was “Patients First”. They said this was important so that both staff and patients knew what their focus was.

We received feedback from over 20 staff members. They were very positive about working in the practice. They described the culture as “exceptional” and “supportive”. All staff said they were proud to work at the practice and that leaders were approachable.

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.

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. Structure charts were in place to make delegation of authority very clear. It outlined the practice partners, managers and practice leads.

Leaders proactively supported staff and regularly met with them to complete appraisals and performance reviews. For example, managers met with non-clinical staff for an annual appraisal and the lead GP met with clinical staff. Support and supervision sessions were completed in between the appraisal, so staff had support continuously.

The provider had established governance processes in relation to the quality statements we reviewed during this assessment, which were appropriate for their service. Staff could access all required policies and procedures, which were kept up to date and reflected latest guidance. We reviewed policies and saw they were reviewed and updated at appropriate intervals.

The practice had a system of regular meetings. This included clinician, nurses, non-clinical staff and multidisciplinary meetings. During these meetings they discussed emerging risks and potential improvements to the service. Staff clearly recorded any actions that arose from these meetings and shared these with the rest of the staff team as was appropriate.

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.