The Weaverham 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 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, 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.

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality, human rights, diversity, inclusion and engagement. Staff and leaders understood the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff felt involved in the development of the service’s vision and strategy. Leaders monitored and reviewed progress against the delivery of their strategy. The service was aware of local challenges which affected their service. Staff spoke of a shared vision to provide a high quality, patient centred service that was responsive to people’s needs. All staff we spoke to felt positive about working at the practice. 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 did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Leaders proactively supported staff and regularly met with them to complete appraisals and performance reviews. 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 policies and procedures. However, some procedures were not always kept up to date and did not always reflect the latest guidance. For instance, the process for recording and monitoring paper prescriptions were not effective. This was discussed during our assessment. The provider was receptive to our feedback and following the assessment we received assurance that action had been taken to mitigate any risk.

Leaders held regular meetings with staff, during which they discussed emerging risks and potential improvements to the service. Leaders clearly recorded any actions that arose from these meetings and shared these with staff. 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.