London Street 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

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. Leaders used data, patient feedback and audit findings to identify risk and drive quality improvement. 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.

Since the last inspection the practice has taken steps to strengthen the governance and safety systems. We found that there were clear accountability structures with digital and clinical leads having oversight of triage and staff training. We rated this key question as requires improvement at the last inspection. At this inspection, the rating has changed to good

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.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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.

The provider had established governance processes that were appropriate for their service. Staff could access all required policies and procedures. We noted that there was regular practice meetings held with staff, during which clinical concerns and emerging risks were discussed. Managers clearly recorded any actions arising from these meetings and ensured they shared these with staff. The provider addressed previously identified concerns with governance processes and risk related to limited information on recognising high risk symptoms. There was now a digital lead actively monitoring the automated triage system’s performance. We noted that monthly review of referrals and outcomes were being carried out.

The provider was working with other practices in the area, and met quarterly to review triage and access. Learning from incidents and triage outcomes were discussed in clinical meetings to improve patient experience.

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.