Dr Rozewicz & Partners Also known as Simpson House Medical 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 service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment in July 2016, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.The long-standing and stable partnership, supported by effective leadership, has demonstrated the ability to identify and embrace opportunities, with a consistent focus on meeting the needs of patients and the local community through in-house and locally developed initiatives.

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 and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

All staff had contributed to the development of the practice vision and strategy, which was kept under review. Staff consistently demonstrated the expected values during interviews, reflecting their commitment to fulfilling the practice's vision.

The service had a longstanding and stable GP partnership structure. The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Staff told us leaders in the service were approachable and responded to any concerns raised. Staff also told us leaders modelled the values of the practice. We saw the leadership team worked with other practices in the primary care network (PCN) and were engaged in the development of primary care services within the local area. For example, one of the GP Partners was joint clinical director for the PCN which had a combined list size of 80,000 patients. They regularly attended borough-level strategic meetings and care oversight groups playing an active role in system-wide improvement initiatives.

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The practice had established Freedom to Speak up arrangements internally, and externally with the Integrated Care Board. Staff were aware of how to raise concerns.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

Policies and procedures to promote diversity and equality were in place. Adjustments had been implemented to ensure that all staff were valued. For example, flexible working arrangements had been introduced and assessed as necessary to support staff in line with health and safety requirements. We observed a stable workforce, with many clinical and non-clinical staff having worked at the practice for a number of years.

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.

Leaders and managers supported staff, and all staff we spoke with were clear on their individual roles and responsibilities. Managers met with staff regularly to complete appraisals and performance reviews. The provider had established governance processes that were appropriate for their service. Staff could access all required policies and procedures. Managers held regular meetings with staff, during which they discussed clinical concerns and emerging risks. Managers clearly recorded any actions arising from these meetings and ensured they shared these with staff. Staff took confidentiality and information security seriously.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider offered a consultant-led Child Health Hub, where practices within the primary care network could refer children. This clinic was jointly run by a paediatric consultant and a GP, helping to avoid unnecessary secondary care referrals and ensuring that children were seen more quickly. At the end of each clinic, the team determined whether the referring GP could continue to manage the child’s care or whether another pathway such as community paediatrics, acute paediatrics, or GP follow-up was more appropriate. The provider had sought feedback both from families who attended the clinics and clinicians who referred into the service. Feedback was positive and highlighted that this approach supported families by providing timely advice, coordinated care, and clear next steps.

The service had an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) who met quarterly at face-to-face meetings. Meetings were structured and supported by a set agenda. The most recent meeting addressed matters relating to the structure of the PPG, the practice website, access arrangements, the triage system, and the refurbishment of the premises. Representatives from the PPG who provided feedback during our assessment spoke positively about their interactions with the service and the quality of service provided.

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research. The practice had been a training practice for over 25 years. The provider told us that it frequently retained GP trainees, with many progressing to salaried GP roles within the service.

All staff were encouraged to put forward and test new ways of working. For example, the practice had trialled the use of artificial intelligence (AI) as a transcribing tool in consultations and continued to explore the safety and effectiveness of AI for the service’s needs. The practice also offered a ‘Learning Together clinic’, delivered jointly by a paediatric registrar and a GP registrar. This collaborative clinic promoted shared learning between primary and secondary care.