Dr RC Rautray's 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 has changed to requires improvement. The service is in breach of legal regulations in relation to good governance.

This service scored 62 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality, human rights, diversity, inclusion and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The practice manager told us part of the practice’s vision was to have more GPs employed by the practice. At our assessment in January 2017 there had been 4872 patients, 3 GP partners, a salaried GP and a practice nurse. The service said they carried out a survey at the end of 2025 and patients said they would like more GPs. At the time of our assessment there were 2 GP partners, a practice nurse and a healthcare assistant. All other clinicians were locum staff. The practice population had grown to 9215 patients. The practice manager told us a salaried GP had been recruited and they would start imminently.

Out of 15 staff, 8 were up to date with equality, diversity and human rights training.

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 did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Governance systems were not effective. These included systems for managing staff recruitment, training, infection prevention and control, environmental safety and prescription security. Some policies did not contain enough information to guide staff or were not followed. Where risks had been highlighted to the service, they were not always acted on.

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.