East Park 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 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 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 and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

All staff we spoke with were aware of the practice's vision and strategy and understood how their role contributed to achieving its objectives. The practice recognised the challenges some members of the local population faced in accessing healthcare and was actively working to address these issues. This included completing the first phase of the redevelopment of the premises, which aimed to provide an improved environment and enhance the experience of people using the service.

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

Staff feedback about the leadership team was consistently positive. Staff described leaders as approachable, supportive and experienced and said they felt comfortable seeking advice or raising concerns when needed. Leaders demonstrated a good understanding of the challenges facing the service and were proactive in responding to them. They showed awareness of the needs of the local population and workforce and promoted a positive culture where staff worked collaboratively to deliver effective care. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and how they contributed to the wider service. There was a strong sense of teamwork, with open communication, mutual respect and staff feeling valued for their contributions.

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

The service had a Freedom to Speak Up policy in place, which included the contact details of an independent external Freedom to Speak Up Guardian. This information was readily available to staff, ensuring they had access to support both within and outside the organisation if needed. Staff were confident in their ability to raise concerns and demonstrated a clear understanding of the different avenues available to them. They knew who to approach and felt able to speak up about any concerns, confident that they would be listened to and supported appropriately.

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

Staff spoke positively about working at the service and described a supportive team culture where colleagues worked well together to provide care. Staff told us that leaders treated everyone fairly and equally and that there were opportunities for professional development and career progression. They felt comfortable sharing their views, raising concerns, and contributing ideas to improve the service. Regular annual appraisals were completed, and staff said they could approach leaders at any time to discuss changes to their workload, wellbeing, or flexible working arrangements. Throughout the assessment, both staff and leaders demonstrated an open, inclusive, and supportive working environment.

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.

The service had governance and management arrangements in place that generally supported the delivery of safe, coordinated and person-centred care, although some areas required further strengthening. Leaders were visible, approachable, and demonstrated a clear understanding of the challenges facing the practice, including the impact of ongoing building works and the needs of the local population.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and described a positive and supportive culture where teamwork and openness were embedded.

Systems were in place to monitor quality and safety through audits, training oversight, medicines management reviews and infection prevention and control checks. However, some governance processes required further strengthening to ensure greater consistency and oversight, particularly in relation to DBS records, staff immunisation information, and aspects of medicines monitoring. The service responded promptly to issues identified during the assessment, including concerns relating to equipment servicing and environmental safety.

The service had appropriate governance arrangements in place to protect confidential information and manage data securely. Measures were in place to safeguard both electronic and paper records, helping to ensure information was stored, accessed, and shared appropriately. The premises also had suitable security measures to protect staff, patients, and sensitive information. Staff demonstrated an understanding of information governance requirements and were aware of their responsibilities in maintaining confidentiality and data security. Business continuity and emergency planning arrangements were in place, and staff knew how to access these plans and understood their individual roles and responsibilities during emergencies or service disruptions.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership working to support coordinated care for people. They shared information and learning and collaborated for improvement.

The service was an active member of the Primary Care Network (PCN), regularly attending meetings. Staff were able to refer people to PCN support services, such as a social prescriber and health and well- being coach to provide wider support for their health and wellbeing. However, due to the ongoing building works and limited space within the practice, PCN staff in these additional roles were unable to hold clinics on site at the time of the assessment.

The practice also provided medical care for all six care homes within the PCN area and demonstrated strong partnership working with these services. Feedback from care homes was consistently positive, describing the practice as professional, caring, and responsive to people's needs. Care home staff told us that clinicians took the time to listen to people, provide appropriate support, and ensure care was delivered in a person-centred way. Feedback also highlighted the positive working relationships between the practice and care homes, with the service described as accessible, proactive, and responsive when urgent concerns arose. These arrangements supported coordinated care and helped to ensure people received timely and appropriate treatment.

The practice's Patient Participation Group (PPG) was not active at the time of the assessment. The service had made efforts to re-establish the group following the COVID-19 pandemic; however, interest and engagement from patients had been limited. Despite this, the practice recognised the value of patient involvement in service development and had plans to relaunch the PPG once the redevelopment of the premises was complete and the new building was fully operational.

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice.

The practice was a registered training practice and supported the development of trainee GPs and other clinical staff. Due to ongoing building works and temporary space limitations, the number of trainees accommodated at the time of the assessment had been reduced. Despite these challenges, appropriate arrangements remained in place to support learning and clinical supervision. Trainee clinicians had access throughout the day to a designated duty doctor for advice, guidance, and discussion of clinical decisions. Dedicated time was also built into appointment schedules to allow for reflective learning, supervision, and detailed case discussions, helping to support safe practice and professional development.

Clinical audits formed part of the service's programme of learning, quality improvement, and medicines safety. We saw evidence of a range of audits being completed to review prescribing practices and support safe, effective use of medicines. These included audits of long-term antibiotic prescribing, such as the use of lymecycline for acne and prescribing audits relating to nitrofurantoin. A review of patients prescribed gabapentin had taken place to ensure the indication for treatment, effectiveness, and dosage remained appropriate. The outcomes of these audits had been used to improve prescribing practices, support medicines optimisation, and reduce risks for people receiving treatment.

At the time of the assessment, the practice had temporarily ceased minor surgical procedures due to the limited space and reduced facilities available during the ongoing building works. Records demonstrated that regular audits and monitoring of minor operations had been completed previously, including annual reviews of outcomes. Leaders informed us that these audits would recommence once minor surgery services resumed within the new premises.