GPS Healthcare - Tanworth Lane

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 carried out an announced assessment of 2 quality statements (Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders and Shared direction and culture) under the key question well-led. We have combined the scores for this area with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. There was evidence of learning and improvement. Overall, leaders proactively collaborated with all staff about developments. However, some staff still felt they were not listened to. We received feedback from over 21 staff of all professions and grades. Of those 10 said they did not feel the management team listened to their concerns and 6 said they would not feel able to speak up if something went wrong. Some staff reported that the management culture was negative and morale amongst staff was low. There was a newly formed staff council to support with staff having somewhere to have their views raised and responded to. Since our assessment, the provider has given us evidence to show that the staff council begun work, for example on deciding the new values for the provider, however it was too soon to gather any measurable data about the impact on staff morale. Information about risks, performance and outcomes were shared with all staff to improve care and quality of services.

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.

There was a clear vision and strategy that staff had bought into and was well publicised across sites. Most clinical staff were supported to undertake further training to support the overall delivery of safe and effective care. Leaders told us that GPs had access to regular continuous professional development sessions. Most staff were positive about the culture of the provider. Some staff told us they did not always feel they could speak up. The provider was taking steps to improve staff confidence in speaking up with the introduction of a staff council and embedding the roles of the freedom to speak up guardian and champions. There appeared to be a strong team ethic at each site, but work was needed to build an inclusive, cohesive culture where all staff felt equally valued. The provider worked with the patient participation group to make improvements. The provider was working to improve the triage process, access to appointments and telephone response times.

Staff and leaders ensured that people using the service, their families and carers had opportunities to provide feedback on care received, and improvements. Staff had completed required training and were supported to develop their skills. The provider had established governance processes that were appropriate for their service. Staff could access all required policies and procedures. Since our assessment we have seen evidence of robust processes for reviewing and updating all policies and corporate risk assessments. Managers held regular practice meetings with staff, during which they discussed clinical concerns and emerging risks. Managers clearly recorded any actions arising from these meetings and ensured they shared these with staff.

Mostly staff felt supported by leaders to carry out their role effectively and they felt supported to develop further. However, some staff felt that the way in which information was communicated within the organisation needed to improve. Some staff told us that they did not feel supported or listened to by management and that some of the senior leadership team lacked experience of primary care. Leaders told us they had a stable leadership team, where there was mutual support and respect for one another. At the time of our assessment the senior leadership team did not seem fully aware of how some of the staff were feeling. A new management structure was already in the process of being developed at the time of the July assessment and this has since been implemented with the aim of improving managerial accountability, accessibility and communication. The staff council have also been involved in designing more effective communication across the whole organisation.

There were appropriate processes that allowed leaders to be knowledgeable about clinical issues and priorities for the delivery of high-quality services. Leaders and managers supported staff, and all staff we spoke with were clear on their individual roles and responsibilities. Mostly managers met with staff regularly to complete appraisals and performance reviews.

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.

We did not look at Governance, management and sustainability during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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.