Austen Road 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 reviewed one quality statement in the Well led key question – Governance, management and sustainability. The scores for the other quality statements are based on the previous rating for this key question. The practice had systems in place for identifying, managing, and mitigating risks. These were regularly reviewed to ensure they were working as intended. Practice leaders had established policies, procedures and activities which were reviewed and updated as required. Staff were clear on their roles and accountabilities. There were comprehensive and successful leadership strategies in place to ensure and sustain delivery and to develop the desired culture. Leaders had a deep understanding of issues, challenges, and priorities in their service, and beyond.

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.

Leaders were aware of the work and any improvements required to maintain and improve the level of care and treatment to patients. Practice staff worked as a team to improve processes to ensure they were working as intended. There was an understanding of what the challenges were, and leaders had put actions in place to address them. Structures, processes, and systems of accountability were clearly set out, understood and effective. We saw evidence of a wider shared learning and the involvement of staff at all levels. There were comprehensive assurance systems which were regularly reviewed and improved. This included risk assessments and learning from safety alerts and significant events. Clinical and internal audit processes had a positive impact on quality governance, with clear evidence of actions taken to resolve concerns. There were evidence of systems and processes for learning and continuous improvement.

Staff we interviewed had a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities and that of others. They were aware of where to find guidance when needed. They were encouraged to speak up and where needed discussed openly concerns and were involved where possible in finding solutions. Staff were aware of the process to raise significant events and encouraged to do so. There were 20 staff members employed to work at the practice. We spoke with 9 staff members and received 8 staff CQC questionnaires . Staff members told us there was a friendly and supportive environment to work in. Managers and GPs were approachable, and staff felt supported by the whole team. They commented positively on the opportunities to learn and develop, and that ideas and suggestions were welcomed. We heard of examples where suggestions had been acted upon. However, we also received 2 negative comments. One anonymous staff member informed us that they felt they were unable to speak up and that communication was poor and there was a lack of support. We fed this information back to the practice manager and registered manager. They were receptive to the information we gave them and wanted to ensure that staff felt they could speak up openly and felt listened to when they had any concerns and that these were acted on.

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.