Dr Bouch and Partners Also known as Bridge 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 innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This key question has been rated as good.

Leaders and staff had a shared culture based on listening, learning and openness. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and inclusive and supported staff to develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and the service had effective governance systems. Leaders worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.

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.

Service leaders had a business development plan which prioritised high quality, safe and effective care for people, whilst understanding the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. The service was aware of the limitations of their current premises and was working with partner agencies to explore solutions. They had a shared culture which service leaders and staff told us was supportive, people and team focused and leaders were open to change and suggestions.

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

Leaders were aware of the challenges of delivering safe, sustainable high-quality care and regularly reviewed service demands. For example, they had worked to increase the clinical skill mix of the team to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Leaders had specific roles and responsibilities, and staff knew who the designated leaders were. Leaders had an open-door policy, had regular engagement with staff and attended meetings for two way sharing of information and ideas. The service surveyed staff every year and we reviewed the 2025 survey results. Clinical and non-clinical staff feedback was generally positive in all areas, with mixed feedback from non-clinical staff regarding communication. Staff told us leaders were approachable and responded to any concerns or suggestions raised. For example, a whiteboard was now used to update people about changes to the nurse clinics.

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Processes were in place for staff to speak up, including Freedom to Speak Up arrangements with both internal and external Freedom to Speak Up Guardians. Staff told us leaders were visible and approachable. They were aware of how to raise concerns internally and felt listened to. Some staff were not aware of how to raise concerns externally, although they said they felt able to raise issues within the service. Staff gave examples of where the speaking‑up arrangements had been used to positive effect.

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

The service had processes in place to support workforce equality, diversity and inclusion, with an emphasis on the safety and well-being of staff. This included an equality and diversity policy, and all staff had completed training in equality, diversity and human rights. Staff we spoke with, told us that despite some team members being based in a separate building, they worked collaboratively as a team to support delivery of effective care for people.

Service leaders shared examples of adjustments made to ensure all staff were valued, in relation to adapted equipment and changes to clinic times. Some staff gave examples of reasonable adjustments which were in place for staff, which included flexible working.

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 act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

The service had established governance processes that were appropriate for their service. Staff could access all required policies and procedures. The service had arrangements to ensure business continuity in a range of emergency circumstances.

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. Managers held regular practice, clinical and governance meetings with staff, during which they shared updates and discussed clinical issues and emerging risks. Actions arising from these meetings were documented and available to staff. Staff took people’s confidentiality and information security seriously.

The service understood and carried out their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, and services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partner agencies.

The practice manager was the non-clinical lead for the Primary Care Network (PCN). Primary care networks are groups of GP practices who work together to improve primary care services. The PCN offered Saturday and some evening appointments, for example for cervical screening and women’s health. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

We received positive feedback from other practices in the PCN regarding the non-clinical leadership of the PCN, which included having a positive attitude and excellent communication. Other partner agencies fed back the service was responsive to opportunities and initiatives.

Leaders worked in partnership with the Patient Participation Group (PPG) to share updates and obtain feedback from PPG members. PPG representatives provided positive feedback regarding the engagement with the practice manager and provided examples of improvements made, for example in relation to clinical staffing.

The service played an active role in training and education. It offered placements for GP registrars (qualified doctors training to become GPs), medical students, pharmacists, nurses, paramedics, nurse associates and university and younger students, seeking work experience or preparing to start a healthcare course. Feedback from a range of clinical students was positive, particularly regarding the learning opportunities given and the supportive, helpful nature of the team. The practice manager who was also the Registered Manager, was an Integrated Care Board (ICB) Peer Ambassador and provided a mentoring role to support other practices.

The service participated in health research and gave examples of current and upcoming studies. The non-clinical PCN lead had secured research capability funding, which had supported 1 service to become research active and enabled 8 services to train an additional nurse in Good Clinical Practice (GCP) which was in progress at the time of this assessment. Feedback from 1 partner agency showed the non-clinical lead had explored ways to broaden recruitment in communities that were traditionally under-represented in research.

The service completed clinical audits to ensure the quality and safety of people’s care and treatment was effectively monitored.