Manchester Road 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 service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last inspection, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us they felt the culture of the service was positive, open and healthy. Staff spoke of a shared vision to provide a good quality, patient centred service that was responsive to people’s needs. They described good teamwork and a service that was clear on its function to work in the interests of patients and provide the best patient experience they could.The provider understood the challenges and needs of people and their communities and was working with partner agencies to support people effectively.Staff and leaders actively promoted equality and diversity and worked to identify the causes of any workforce inequalities.

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 systems and processes in place did not consistently promote effective governance.

The provider had established governance processes in relation to most of the quality statements we reviewed during this assessment, which were overall appropriate for their service. The system to monitor the safety of the premises and equipment and to ensure infection was prevented and controlled needed improvement.

The provider reviewed patient feedback from the annual GP Patient Survey results and used this to improve their service. However, they did not have a PPG and there was a low completion rate of the NHS Friends and Family Test. The provider told us how they were addressing this.

All staff we spoke with were clear on their individual roles and responsibilities. They said they felt supported by leaders and that they could access all required policies and procedures. Members of the team told us that communication was effective, and they felt included in decisions about the service. Recent meetings had been held for clinical and non-clinical staff. However, there was no clear plan of the frequency of meetings, and the outcome was not always documented.

Staff took confidentiality and information security seriously, which included verifying people’s identity during remote consultations. Leaders had a process to submit 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.