Bowland Medical 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 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 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.

All 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 service was aware of local challenges which affected their service. The practice reported that it is currently undergoing a period of transition following the recent departure of a senior partner and is exploring opportunities to introduce modern improvements, including the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology.

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

All staff we spoke with were clear on their individual roles and responsibilities. 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 all required policies and procedures, which were kept up to date and reflected latest guidance. Policies were kept up to date through regular reviews.

The practice had an established system of quality improvement and routinely undertook two-cycle clinical audits. These audits were informed by analysis of Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) performance data, enabling the identification of areas for improvement. For example, the practice had recently completed an audit of Z‑drug prescribing (hypnotics used to treat insomnia) and had developed an action plan to reduce the number of patients prescribed this type of medication.

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.