• Doctor
  • GP practice

Waverley PMS

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

The Waverley Practice, 37 Waverley Crescent, Plumstead, London, SE18 7QU (020) 8319 7614

Provided and run by:
Waverley PMS

Important:

We served warning notices on Waverley PMS on 8 August 2024 for failing to meet the regulations related to safe management of medicines and assessment of risks to the health and safety of service users receiving care or treatment, and for failing to meet the regulations related to governance systems and processes at Waverley PMS.

Report from 11 June 2024 assessment

On this page

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 16 August 2024

We assessed a total of 2 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores based on the rating from the January 2019 inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question is requires improvement. We found that the provider’s governance processes were not always effective in the identification and management of risks.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Shared direction and culture

Score: 3

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.

Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders

Score: 3

Staff spoke positively about leaders in the practice, reporting that GPs and management were visible and approachable. Staff described the working environment and relationships between staff and managers as positive. Staff described the team as supportive and cohesive. We found that 2 of the 3 non-clinical staff members were unable to describe what the duty of candour entailed.

Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities. There was a clear leadership structure in the practice. We found the processes for sharing information regarding complaints, significant events, safeguarding and safety alerts were not always effective. We did not see evidence of a formalised process for sharing information or concerns.

Freedom to speak up

Score: 3

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.

Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion

Score: 3

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.

Governance, management and sustainability

Score: 1

Staff told us they knew how to access policies and procedures. However, staff also told us they were not always given protected time to complete required training and on occasion would need to complete this in their own time.

Our assessment identified that improvements were required in relation to the governance, oversight and management of risks relating to: • Monitoring of patients with long term conditions. • Management of medicines requiring monitoring. • Safety alerts. • Medicine reviews. • Clinical audits. • Processes for the discussion and communication of significant events, complaints, safeguarding concerns or medicines safety alerts. • Management of test results. • Staff training. • Staff recruitment. • Infection prevention and control.

Partnerships and communities

Score: 3

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.

Learning, improvement and innovation

Score: 3

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.