The Wellington 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 assessed a total of 7 quality statements from this key question. We found improvements had been made since the previous inspection in January 2023. The provider improved their governance processes and their quality assurance systems. Feedback from staff demonstrated leaders were inclusive and collaborative in their approach to strategic direction and decision making. The staff were well supported by compassionate colleagues in their teams and had access to training in equality, diversity and human rights. The practice worked in collaboration with other stakeholders to ensure positive outcomes for patient.

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 received staff feedback from a variety of sources. This feedback demonstrated that staff felt involved in the strategy and decision making of senior leaders.

The leadership and staffing team were committed to meeting the demands of the local population and had collective strategic planning in place. The leadership team monitored progress and performance in terms of national bench marking on clinical outcomes and patients’ feedback.

Staff feedback demonstrated that senior leaders were inclusive and collaborative in their approach to strategic direction and decision making. The staff working at the practice informed us they believed they worked collaboratively, and they were well supported by compassionate colleagues in their teams. Staff feedback also showed that communication was not always effective when informing staff about changes to process. Staff said they sometimes received key information from colleagues informally rather than standard communication channels, which sometimes caused confusion.

There were meetings to share information and ensure staff had an opportunity to share concerns with their line managers, but staff were not always able to attend these meetings due to shift patterns.

Staff were aware of the significant event processes and attended meetings where they received feedback. Staff feedback indicated they were aware of the freedom to speak up process and named person.

Staff were provided with the service’s freedom to speak up information policies.

Staff informed us they had access to training in equality, diversity and human rights.

The provider ensured there was a training for staff in equality diversity and human rights and these requirements were included in the provider’s policies.

Staff told us about the governance processes used to monitor the care provided, the quality of the service and also, safety of the service. They informed us about processes to monitor long term conditions management, medicine reviews, infection control and medicine management including emergency medicines and equipment. Staff understood who was responsible for areas of governance and their appointed leads who oversaw medicines management, infection control and the maintenance of premises and equipment.

There were governance processes for ensuring relevant equipment was calibrated, serviced and that risks associated with the premises were governed. Clinical care was monitored through data and patient outcomes. There was clinical audit based on areas for potential quality improvement but this was limited. There were effective governance processes for overseeing patients’ prescribing and optimising the use of specific medicines.

Patients received information from the provider regarding improvements to services made as a result of patient feedback.

Staff and leaders informed us of how they worked within their locality including with other health providers such as district nurses, social care providers and GP out of hours services to develop their services and deliver patient care.

Local commissioners and the care homes confirmed the practice’s team worked with them collaboratively.

The practice had processes to manage patients’ care in coordination with NHS 111, care homes, primary care out of hours and other external services.

There was some audit and quality improvement work including the processes to manage long term conditions. The practice had focused on improving the safety of repeat prescribing since the previous CQC inspection. They had achieved significant improvements in this area.

There were processes for developing improvements in practice. Patient feedback from complaints and the national GP survey were monitored. The core quality improvement activity since CQC’s last inspection had been ensuring prescribing was safe for patients.