Lister House Surgery

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 service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. We assessed all the quality statements in the safe key question. This key question has been rated as good.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.

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.

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Arrangements were in place to promote people’s privacy. The waiting room had music playing so conversations could not be overheard. People could request a conversation in a room off reception so they could speak freely in private.

The 2025 National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to with 82% of responders saying the healthcare professional was good at listening.

Staff we spoke with understood Gillick competency and there was a process to ensure young adults had control over their own privacy and the amount of parental involvement in managing their care and support.

The service provided personalised care, ensuring that support and treatment took account of people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. It considered people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were understood and met. Communication requirements were addressed to ensure people could actively participate in their care. For example, people’s records flagged they required an interpreter so arrangements for a translator could be made in advance of their appointment. The service website could be translated into a variety of languages to support people who did not speak English as a first language.

There was a process to record people’s wishes on their care record and share these records with other local health and care professionals who needed to access them.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Staff helped people and their carers to access external agencies who linked them with community-based services. The service displayed posters and leaflets containing information to support people to make healthier choices.

People could request to see a clinician of their choice. The service accommodated these requires whenever possible, and if this caused a delay, staff explained the situation and offered an alternative appointment.

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

There was a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support, including symptoms that required urgent medical attention.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. Staff told us they were valued by leaders.

Leaders had taken steps to recognise and meet the wellbeing needs of staff, which included the necessary resources and facilities for safe working, such as regular breaks, rest areas and desk risers to enable staff to stand while working. Staff reported being supported if they were struggling at work. Feedback from staff showed us they all valued the monthly half day closure as a chance to all get together, share learning, review complaints and compliments and have an opportunity to complete training and admin tasks.

Staff told us they felt valued by leaders. They told us leaders were accessible and approachable, fostering strong relationships and creating an environment where they felt comfortable raising wellbeing concerns.

Staff had regular supervision with their team leaders as well as annual appraisals to support their wellbeing, build relationships and provide a space for conversations.