Wheal Northey Also known as Wheal Northey Site

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 all quality statements in the well led key question. Our rating for this key question remains good. Systems and processes were in place to support the safe delivery of care. Staff were clear on their individual responsibilities and knew who was accountable for each aspect of the service. Leaders were capable, compassionate and inclusive and although they had oversight of the service to ensure the effective running of the service, we identified some gaps that were immediately rectified. The service encouraged duty of candour, openness, and honesty.

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.

Staff were encouraged to attend regular staff meetings where updates and new information was shared. Staff shared with us that in the past, communication between teams and leaders had been an issue but recently implemented changes had improved this. Staff told us about the open environment and told us they would feel comfortable speaking up and raising issues.

There were systems to ensure compliance with the requirements of the duty of candour. There were arrangements to deal with any behaviour inconsistent with the vision and values. Meeting minutes were recorded and accessible to all staff on the practice electronic system.

Staff reported that leaders were visible, approachable and genuinely cared about them. Leaders recognised the importance of staff wellbeing and helped to coordinate flexible working so people could achieve a good work/life balance. Leaders understood the challenges to quality and sustainability and demonstrated the skills and knowledge required to influence others and understand their role in leadership.

Leaders included staff in their planning for the future. The practice had identified the actions necessary to address challenges and make improvements. Leaders were available to staff at all times.

Staff told us they would feel comfortable and able to raise their concerns with leaders. Staff were unsure if there was a freedom to speak up guardian (FTSUG) and who it may be. Leaders told us they did not have a FTSUG but following this assessment, they were considering identifying an external person to fulfil this role.

There were policies and processes in place to support speaking up and these were accessible to all staff online. The practice did not have a formal freedom to speak up guardian. However, leaders had facilitated a process for staff to have access to a named colleague they could speak to who would in turn, raise concerns anonymously to leaders if the staff member did not want to be identified.

Staff explained their understanding of equality, diversity and inclusion and had completed training in this area.

Staff had access to an equality, diversity, and inclusion policy and had completed relevant training. Newly recruited staff completed a monitoring form, so the service was aware of the diversity of their workforce. This was not completed for all staff as this was a process that was introduced after some staff had already been employed for some time.

Staff and leaders understood their individual roles and responsibilities. They were aware of the importance of confidentiality and information security. Staff and leaders told us learning was shared in team meetings and used to make improvements to the service. Annual appraisals identified learning and development opportunities, and appropriate training was sourced.

There were processes in place for managing risks, issues, and performance. There was evidence of systems and processes for learning, continuous improvement, and innovation. Staff had access to all policies and procedures. Regular meetings were held to discuss clinical concerns, review incidents, and share learning.

We identified some gaps and areas for improvement which the practice had not identified themselves from our clinical searches and from the onsite visit. The practice did not always have full oversight to ensure tasks were being completed to keep people safe and in line with national guidance. Following the issues being identified, the practice acted swiftly and implemented new processes to ensure people were not at risk. However, these processes needed to be embedded to ensure people are not exposed to the identified risks in the future.

People had no specific feedback in this area.

Staff and leaders had established working relationships with community stakeholders sharing their specialist knowledge, skills and experiences. Leaders told us there was an active Patient Participation Group and worked in partnership with them to gain their feedback.

Partners told us the practice ensured appropriate actions were taken to support vulnerable people and manage concerns.

The practice understood its patient population and had adapted its service to meet identified needs. For example, there were good working links with social workers and district nurses. There was a plan to develop a ‘Home Team’ to support people living in the community.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and several staff had worked there for a number of years. Some staff had been encouraged to develop their skills set to enable them to take on new roles, responsibilities and further their career. Learning needs were discussed in team meetings and individual needs were identified in annual appraisals which staff found helpful. Leaders told us they wanted to support and encourage staff to develop.

The practice worked within a multi-disciplinary team to provide the right support for each individual. The service actively participated in regular meetings where people’s care and treatment needs were discussed to improve their outcomes. The practice was innovative in their approach to people’s health. For example, people with hypertension (high blood pressure) could enter their blood pressure readings on a phone app over a set period of time. This meant people did not have to repeatedly visit the practice and their results could be viewed remotely, and action taken where necessary.