Bankfield 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 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 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.

The practice had a positive and inclusive culture, underpinned by a clear mission statement that had been developed collaboratively with staff. Staff spoke positively about their roles and described a strong sense of teamwork within the service. They told us the culture was friendly and supportive, contributing to a positive working environment where individuals felt valued. Staff also reported they were well supported in their professional development, with opportunities and encouragement to maintain and enhance their skills.

Regular team meetings were held to share updates and promote open communication across the service with staff at all levels. Records of meetings minutes were stored and accessible to all staff on the service’s electronic system.

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 generally had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. However, some improvement was needed.

The service had a defined governance structure; however, systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service were not consistently effective. Audits intended to identify areas for improvement were not routinely completed or maintained, which limited oversight. For example, the service did not have sufficient assurance regarding tasks undertaken by external providers, such as weekly fire safety checks. In addition, there was no evidence appropriate checks were in place to verify the ongoing registration of clinical staff.

Despite these gaps, leaders and managers were visible and provided support to staff. All staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Regular practice meetings were held, during which clinical concerns and emerging risks were discussed.

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.