Adelaide 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 the practice’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, we focused on 2 quality statements relating to the key question Well-led: Shared direction and culture and Governance, management and sustainability. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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 practice 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 had contributed to the development of the service’s vision and strategy, which was kept under review. Leaders monitored and reviewed progress against the delivery of their strategy. The practice was aware of local challenges which affected the service and worked with partner agencies to address them. It had a range of governance protocols setting out how care and support was provided to patients from marginalised groups.

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 and patient-centred care. Leaders and staff were dedicated to ensuring high-quality and effective care for all people and communities served by the practice. The feedback we received from 19 staff members, from both the clinical and administrative teams, very much supported this. They consistently described the practice as being friendly and supportive; that it was patient-centred and provided a warm and welcoming environment for patients and staff; communication within the practice was good; several mentioned positive teamwork and combined problem-solving skills. Clinical staff said the support from the administrative team was excellent. The practice’s open learning culture, and the high morale and wellbeing of its staff were conducive to the positive experience and outcomes of people using the service and those close to them.

We saw that staff turnover was low and were told that GPs who had trained at the practice frequently later took up salaried roles there when their training was complete. It was apparent that staff worked together to provide a patient-centred and caring service. There were consistently high levels of satisfaction across the workforce, including among those with protected equality characteristics. Staff were proud of the practice as a place to work, felt psychologically safe and spoke highly of its open, inclusive and non-discriminatory culture. Staff felt able to raise concerns with leaders. They had received training on bullying and harassment and Freedom to Speak Up. There was an identified Freedom to Speak up Guardian. There is no bullying, harassment or discrimination in organisational practices. All staff, regardless of background, felt equally valued.

We saw evidence the practise learned from patients’ complaints. There was an annual audit of complaints, which was discussed with all staff to identify any trends, allow reflection and take remedial measures. Records showed staff had received relevant training such as complaints management, conflict resolution and the Duty of Candour.

The practice’s patient participation group currently consisted of 17 members. It met on a broadly quarterly basis. In addition, it had held an open meeting last year which all patients were able to attend. We saw there was information regarding the group’s activities in the waiting area and on the practice website, which also had links to the PPG meeting minutes and its annual report.

We spoke with the chair of the PPG who was positive regarding the practice’s engagement with the group, including the administrative support it provided, and it being responsive to issues the group raised. For example, it being made clear to patients which member of the clinical team they were booked to see, and the group was working closely with the practice in work to overhaul the practice website. We saw evidence that monitoring information regarding complaints, significant events and patient survey results was shared with the PPG in anonymised form for review and discussion. There was also a wider Virtual Patient Engagement Group, which informed patients not able to join the PPG of issues relevant to the service. In addition, some members of the PPG were involved in the pan-Camden patient group which considered more wide-ranging aspects of healthcare issues.

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 practice had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. It used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. It acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

We received feedback confirming staff members were clear on their individual roles and responsibilities, and they knew which team members were named leads for various aspects of the service, such as safeguarding, infection prevention and control, etc. Staff Leaders proactively supported staff and regularly met with them to complete appraisals and performance reviews.

The practice had put in place a suite of governance policies in relation to the quality statements we reviewed during this assessment. We saw evidence that governance systems were proactively reviewed to ensure they remain fit for purpose, proportionate and responsive to emerging risks, system changes and population needs. We saw the policies were reviewed a regular basis, according to a set schedule, and updated as appropriate to reflect latest guidance. Any changes were communicated to staff, and a record was maintained to confirm staff members had read policies that had been revised.

Governance systems were inclusive and empowering. The practice demonstrated a learning-focused governance culture, where insight from staff, people who used services and partners informed action and improvement. We saw evidence that the practice held regular meetings with staff, during which they discussed emerging risks and potential improvements to the service. Feedback we received confirmed staff were encouraged to participate in discussions regarding service development. In addition, new guidance and safety alerts was reviewed and discussed, together with any individual cases that were of note, or which provided learning opportunities. The practice conducted an annual audit of significant events, which was reviewed at a whole team meeting to identify where improvement might be made. Leaders clearly recorded any actions that arose from these meetings and shared these with staff.

Staff took confidentiality and information security seriously. We saw evidence of staff receiving governance training relevant to the roles and responsibilities, such as Caldecott and confidentiality information governance and data security, the UK General Data Protection Regulation. 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.