Partners in Health

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.

This key question has been rated as Good.

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.

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social, and religious needs of people. Staff told us they gave people appropriate and timely information to understand their care, treatment, or condition.

Results from the national GP Patient Survey showed that 85.4% of people who responded indicated that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment, compared with a national average of 91.2%.

We asked the service to share a link with people so they could share their feedback with CQC, but we did not receive a significant increase in feedback. We evidenced the service carried out its own patient surveys, monitored for themes and took actions depending on the nature of the concern. Staff we spoke with understood Gillick competency (Gillick competency refers to the legal ability of a child under 16 to consent to medical treatment without parental consent, provided they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to appreciate the treatment's nature, risks, and alternatives) 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. During our site visit, we observed staff to be friendly and supportive in their interactions with patients both at the reception desk and over the telephone.There were arrangements to promote patients’ privacy. For example, consultations were held in private with doors closed and there were areas in consulting rooms that could be curtained off to promote privacy.

All relevant staff were trained in chaperone duties and there were notices throughout the service offering this service.

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, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of patients. Patients were treated as individuals and staff were able to describe the reasonable adjustments, they made to support people’s specific needs.People’s communication needs were identified and documented in clinical records to ensure patients were fully involved in decisions about their care. The service was accredited as an Armed Forces veteran-friendly GP service and demonstrated a commitment to supporting vulnerable groups. Clinical notes were coded to ensure easy identification.

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 advocacy and community-based services. The service supported people to have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing, and promote their independence. For example, families were encouraged to take up the offer of vaccination for their child. Nurses took time to address their concerns, providing evidence-based guidance and signposting to credible sources of information. This helped families to make an informed choice for their child.This was evidenced in results from the national GP Patient Survey that showed the service had exceeded the 90% minimum target for childhood immunisations. People could access information in the service such as posters and leaflets and on the service website to support them to make healthier choices. Staff helped patients and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services. The service website detailed how to access information in alternative formats. For example, large print, screen readers and was fully compatible with assistive technology. The service had a text relay service and audio induction loop (an assistive listening system that transmits sound directly to a hearing aid or cochlear implant) for the hearing impaired or people who had a speech impediment. The service could also arrange for British Sign Language interpreter.

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.

We reviewed the appointment and triage system and saw urgent medical needs were identified and these were prioritised appropriately. Staff highlighted the support of the daily Duty Doctor who validated decisions and was always available to respond to patients’ immediate needs. During our site visit, we evidenced that on-the-day appointments were available for patients with urgent needs. Staff were familiar with the process for referring patients to emergency support and were able to provide relevant examples of how this had been implemented.

Leaders told us they regularly reviewed staffing to ensure there were enough clinicians to meet the needs of patients and had recently recruited 2 additional GPs in response to patient need. Following the 2025 GP Patient Survey, access to appointments was identified as an area for improvement. In response, the service implemented targeted actions, including improving their web-based task forms. To support this, a feedback tracker was introduced to enable regular review of patient input and monitor progress against agreed actions. Further patient feedback reviewed as part of this inspection, indicated that patients had their needs met and were happy with the care and treatment provided by the service.

Additionally, feedback from the linked care home highlighted that both clinical and non-clinical staff consistently prioritised patients’ needs, preferences, and comfort.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff we spoke with reported that they were happy working at the service and felt supported and valued by leaders. They described the leadership team as approachable and responsive, and said they could seek advice and guidance at any time. Staff reported being supported if they were struggling at work and told us they raised concerns about their wellbeing during annual appraisals or in regular meetings with team leaders. The service supported professional development and career progression, tailored to the individual’s needs, contributing to a high level of job satisfaction. For example, 3 staff were supported to complete their non-medical prescribing qualifications.

Leaders had taken steps to recognise and meet both the physical and mental wellbeing needs of staff, which included the necessary resources and facilities for a safe and enjoyable working environment, such as providing social events, team building initiatives and fundraisers, and regular reviews of distribution of work streams. Staff consistently reported that they enjoyed coming to work and valued both the support of their team and that of their leaders.