Primary Care Centre

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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Inadequate. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

The service was previously in breach of legal regulation in relation to:

• The provider had inadequate systems in place to demonstrate how complaints were dealt with and investigated efficiently. We found complainants had not been treated with respect and courtesy.

At the previous inspection we rated the practice as inadequate for providing caring services as patient feedback was negative in response to the care they received. At this assessment we found people we spoke with were happy with the care they received; this was also reflected in the national patient survey where the practice had scored in line with local and national averages for a range of indicators in relation to accessing care and the overall experience of the GP practice. Staff we spoke with demonstrated the values of the practice and dealt with patients with kindness, respect, and compassion. Interactions we observed between staff and patients, showed that staff listened to patients and treated them with kindness.

People who used the service were supported to make decisions about their future care. Information about how to raise a complaint was provided to people. The provider understood their patient population and they identified and made changes to improve their service where required. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and outcomes. The provider worked within the PCN and supported local service developments. Continuity of care was offered to patients where required or when patients requested consultations with specific clinicians. The provider made reasonable adjustments to ensure the premises were accessible to patients who required disabled access.

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.

At the last inspection we found responses to patients’ complaints lacked compassion and respect and people had not been provided with understanding or a non-judgmental approach. The new leadership team had improved processes to ensure that all patients were treated with compassion and dignity.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated the values of the practice and dealt with patients with kindness, respect, and compassion. Interactions we observed between staff and patients, showed that staff listened to patients and treated them with kindness.

Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy. The National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. 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 treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Patients’ personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were understood and met. Patient communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care.

Resources were available such as language line to support patients who didn’t have English as a first language and practice staff spoke a range of languages to support the local community. Staff we spoke with were aware of the needs of the practice’s population and gave us examples on how they supported patients. For example, appointments were offered at different times of the day to suit people's needs.

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 patients and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services. The practice had access to a social prescriber through the primary care network who provided support and information on local services within the community. The people we spoke with on the day of the onsite assessment told us they felt included in decisions about their care and treatment.

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.

The nurse practitioner provided regular ward rounds for the local nursing home. We received positive feedback on the level of care provided, which included medicine reviews and access to a GP if required.

Following the last inspection, the provider had increased the clinical team, which included clinical staff and a practice nurse. The practice had access to a range of clinical services through the PCN which included mental health practitioners, pharmacists and physiotherapists.

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.

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 felt valued by the leadership team. Staff reported being supported if they were struggling at work. We spoke with a range of staff on the day and found staff were positive about working at the practice and the support they received. Staff told us that they had been well supported when needed and adjustments had been made when required to ensure that staff were able to do their role effectively. Regular meetings were in place to share learning and updates. A staff survey had been completed in April 2025, to determine how staff felt about their workload and if they felt able to ask for support. The results of the survey showed the majority of staff felt at times the workload was unmanageable, but staff told us they could ask support from the leadership team if needed.