Iridium Medical Practice

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that the practice involved patients and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

Staff treated patients with care and compassion, although this was not always reflected in patient feedback. Staff identified, recorded and responded to patient’s individual needs. Patients had choice regarding care and treatment and were supported to maximise their independence. Systems were in place to allow staff to respond to patients’ immediate needs. Staff wellbeing, values and behaviours had been made a priority and staff were supported to be the best they could be in their role.
 

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 we spoke with were passionate about providing good care with the patient at the centre. We observed staff treating patients with care and kindness during our inspection. Patients’ privacy and dignity was promoted, for example, posters advised patients that chaperones were available. However, patient feedback was mixed. Whilst some patients were positive about their interactions with staff, there was a consistent theme in the feedback regarding poor staff attitudes. Some patients told us they did not feel listened to or that their concerns were taken seriously and that sometimes staff were rude or abrupt. Of 104 pieces of feedback received by CQC in the last 12 months, 36 were negative and of these 17 mentioned staff attitude or manner. However, there were also 33 responses via our ‘Give Feedback on Care’ forms that specifically mentioned friendly, helpful or caring staff. The practice had identified this theme about attitudes during their annual review of complaint information and acknowledged that further improvement was required. Leaders were in the process of planning a series of training sessions around communication and customer care, for both clinical and non-clinical staff.

In the recent 2026 National GP Patient Survey positive responses to the question “how helpful do you find the reception and administration team at your GP practice” had shown steady improvement over the last 3 years from 66% in 2024 to 85% in 2026. The same is true of patients responding to the question “how good was your healthcare professional at treating you with care and concern” where there has been consistent improvement over time from 78% in 2024 to 82% in 2026. This remains just below the national average for this question of 85%. Fewer patients felt their healthcare professional was good at listening to them with 81% responding positively in 2026 compared with 85% in 2025.The practice had independently reviewed the results of the GP Patient Survey, shared them with staff and implemented an action plan to target areas for improvement, including listening, care and concern and other aspects of the patient experience.

The practice had 7,966 responses to Friends and Family Test messages in the last 12 months and 75.8% of patients said they would recommend the service to friends and family.

At our previous inspection we found that staff did not always treat each other or colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. The practice had reflected on this and undertaken a large project to transform the workplace culture led by an external facilitator. This project had co-produced a set of values and behaviours that were expected of staff and that staff had embraced. Feedback from staff at all levels in the organisation showed that the culture had changed significantly and that people were happier and more confident at work.
 

The practice treated patients as individuals and made sure patient’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. They took account of individual’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Patient’s communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care. Staff told us that interpreting services, including British sign language were available when needed and many staff were multilingual. Information was available in different languages and formats. Staff used translation apps to translate text messages that were to be sent to patients who did not speak English as their first language particularly when messages related to cancer screening or childhood immunisation appointments. Staff gave examples of providing tailored support to patients whose health conditions could result in behaviours that may be unexpected or distressing for others. They took appropriate steps to maintain the person's dignity while minimising any impact on other people using the service.

Digital flags were maintained on the clinical system to alert staff when patients required reasonable adjustments and a system was in place to monitor, update and audit these flags. People with neurodivergent conditions were offered reasonable adjustments, such as appointments at quieter times and alternative waiting arrangements, to reduce anxiety, minimise sensory distractions and support equitable access to care.
 

The practice promoted patient’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. At our last inspection we had received feedback from patients that they could not always book a GP appointment for the future, only for that day and that they had experienced delays in getting repeat prescriptions. Whilst patient feedback remained mixed, we did not have any comments regarding these issues at this inspection.

In the National GP Patient survey, the percentage of patients using the NHS app to book appointments had gradually increased over the last 2 years up to 60% which was above the national average of 54%. This improved patient’s independence and control over booking appointments.

Patients could attend the main site or a branch site and in the National GP Patient Survey 23% of patients were offered a choice of location which is an improvement from 17% in 2025 and above the national average of 16%. Fifty per cent of patients reported that they were offered a choice of day or time for their appointment which is just below the national average of 57%. Patients could book appointments for routine reasons up to 4 months in advance, which allowed them more control over planning and managing long-term conditions. However, only 21% of patients who responded said they were able to get an appointment with their preferred GP which is below the national average of 42% suggesting that patients didn’t always have choice over who their appointment was with or continuity of care. As a result of the National GP Patient Survey response, the practice has introduced an action plan targeting choice of appointment day or time and continuity of care. The provider told us that this plan will be reviewed by the governance leads at 3 and 6 months to monitor the impact and effectiveness.

Staff were able to refer patients to the social prescribing team for assistance with social issues that were impacting their health or those with more complex needs could be referred to the Integrated Neighbourhood Team. Social prescribers offered face to face, telephone or digital appointments and patients could access a range of clinics at the practice run by external stakeholders including some drop-in clinics. Via the health inequalities lead the practice had established links with a wide range of local authority and voluntary schemes aimed at improving physical and mental health such as exercise on prescription and gardening clubs. Patients could also access support with energy and travel costs, benefit claims and debt management which increased their ability to have independence and control over multiple areas of their lives.
 

The practice listened to and understood patients’ needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The practice had a large waiting area which was not fully visible to staff on the reception desk and the view was often further obscured by patients queueing at the desk. To reduce the queues and maintain oversight of the waiting room one member of reception staff was on duty in the waiting area and supported patients to check in via digital screens, alerted patients with communication needs when they were called for their appointment and directed patients to clinical rooms.

The main practice site was housed in a large multi-use health facility and a security guard was on duty at all times to support the safety of both staff and patients. The branch site was a smaller facility shared with some external staff and did not have a security guard although all staff had access to emergency call systems to summon help when needed.

The practice had a daily triage team which consisted of a GP, a pharmacist and a dedicated administrator. This team worked with the receptionists responding to telephone and digital appointment, medicines and administrative requests ensuring that appointments were booked based on clinical prioritisation. The duty pharmacist dealt with medicine queries and requests swiftly and reduced the need for patients to see a GP. All receptionists were trained in care co-ordination and could signpost patients to other services if they would better suit their immediate needs such as Pharmacy First or NHS 111.

All staff had training in recognising and managing sepsis as well as basic life support. Staff we spoke with all knew how to respond to an emergency situation including mental health crises.
 

At our previous inspection there were significant concerns regarding workplace culture, staff morale, workloads and freedom to speak up.

At this inspection, we found that the practice always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care. As part of this inspection, we spoke with 18 members of staff in individual interviews and received 8 staff feedback questionnaires. All the feedback from staff was consistently positive. The leadership team, which had been reconfigured and strengthened since our previous inspection had taken action to address the concerns demonstrating a clear commitment to listening to feedback and driving meaningful change.

The provider commissioned an external consultancy service to run ‘A Kind Life’ program during which staff discussed their experiences, leaders articulated their expectations and together the team co-produced a staff charter; a set of agreed values and behaviours. Staff we spoke with had found this to be a valuable exercise which had improved the culture, communication and relationships within the team. They described feeling valued and respected for their work and emphasised that the culture had transformed over the last 18 months. A follow up program was in the process of being booked which would build on these achievements.

A program of recruitment had increased staffing levels and workloads were reduced so that staff no longer felt the need to work overtime on weekends or bank holidays. Backlogs in various workstreams had been cleared so staff were able to meet key performance indicators with less pressure and delays occurred less frequently.

As part of the governance review a program of regular team, clinical, governance and practice meetings had been embedded. Staff told us these meetings improved team dynamics, communication and information sharing and everyone was encouraged to contribute thoughts and ideas. Anonymous routes for staff feedback were also available.

The system of clinical supervision had been strengthened and formalised so that all staff had a dedicated period of supervision as well as access to the duty doctor and pharmacist for immediate support. Supervision records were maintained and contributed to the appraisal system. Staff we spoke with had all had an appraisal in the last 12 months and were able to discuss any learning needs, continuing professional development requirements or career progression opportunities in these meetings.

Staff had access to occupational health services and other wellbeing services, such as a mental health first aider. A wellbeing tracker was used to monitor issues and outcomes.

As part of an annual program with quarterly events, social gatherings for Christmas and Eid had been well supported and staff spoke about the benefits of getting together outside the work environment.

A rewards scheme was in place with an employee of the week award. Further awards were nominated by staff and an awards night, modelled on the Oscars was held. For example, the team that won team of the year, voted for by the staff, were rewarded with a day out at a theme park.