Wadebridge and Camel Estuary 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 have rated the practice as safe for providing a well led service. As part of this inspection we reviewed the governance, management and sustainability. The partners and practice manager, supported by the deputy practice manager and team leader, had oversight of systems and practices to promote the effective running of the service. While there were gaps identified in some areas, the practice manager was aware of these and action taken to address any issues to promote learning and development of the service.

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.

Staff were encouraged to attend monthly staff meetings during which updates and new information was shared. Minutes of the meeting were recorded and accessible to all staff on the practice electronic system. Staff told us that team meetings for nursing and administration staff had previously been held regularly. However, staffing shortages meetings had impacted on the frequency of these meetings. Staff demonstrated knowledge and safe practices regarding IT security. Staff logged off computers when leaving their desk. Staff were aware of their own responsibility for completing required training and actions that would be taken by the practice if their training was not completed. Reminders were provided by the practice to all staff when training was due.

Team leaders and the practice manager had oversight of administration systems and processes to ensure they ran smoothly and efficiently. However, minutes of meetings did not consistently demonstrate any review of the previous meeting to ensure actions had been taken. There was a backlog of 256 administration tasks. Staff explained this was not an entirely accurate figure as often the practice received an electronic discharge form as well as a paper record. The administration team were supported by colleagues and the practice manager to complete the coding and scanning of discharge letters. Tasks were assigned to relevant clinicians where changes were identified within the discharge information. External organisations were appointed to provide services and/or carry out environmental risk assessments for the practice. The practice reviewed systems and practices and made improvements where necessary. For example, it had been identified that the checking of patient test results and feedback to the patient had not been effective. The system had been reviewed, developed and staff provided with guidance to improve the system so that patients now received their results in a more timely way. A business continuity plan provided guidance and information for staff to ensure the continuity and running of the service. This included action to take in emergency situations such as electrical power failure, environmental issues, inclement weather, and sickness. Digital services were used securely and effectively within the service. The practice manager had oversight of the training process. Records evidenced staff had completed training or training was planned within the practice’s timescales. The practice had oversight of the work carried out by non medical prescribers. For example, a review of a selection of clinical records had been completed and discussions followed regarding clinical decisions and prescribing.

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.