Abbeyview 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. This key question has been rated as requires improvement.

This service scored 55 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. The GP National Survey Data for 2025 showed that 91% of people felt the reception and admin team were helpful; this was above the national average of 78%. 74% of people felt that the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern at their last appointment; this was below the national average of 85%. The PPG felt all staff at the practice were approachable and listened to and valued their views. Feedback we received directly from patients was mixed, with negative themes relating to staff conduct and patients not feeling they were taken seriously.

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. Patients’ personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were understood and met.

The service did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Searches of the practice’s clinical records system showed that patient had not always had comprehensive reviews or involvement in long term conditions management. The exception to this was diabetes care, which was well managed and reviewed as expected. The practice had a carer’s champion but this was a new role and therefore difficult to assess impact at this stage. Direct feedback to us showed that people did not always feel they received appropriate follow up.

The service did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Although there was a recent change in patient triage, we could not be assured that this system was working effectively as direct patient feedback told us that appointment accessibility remained an issue. Therefore we were unable to be assured that patient’s immediate needs were always being addressed. Staff knew how to act in an emergency situation and how to ensure appropriate onward referral. Some patients felt that access to GPs was sometimes difficult. The practice were aware of staff vacancies and were planning to address this through additional recruitment but we were unable to assess the impact this may have for patients.

The practice did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. The practice acknowledged that not all staff had a break throughout the working day which impacted on morale. This was not adhering to national legislation. The practice told us they planned to implement a break system going forward but we were unable to assess the sustainability of this. We saw examples where leaders had taken time to support staff through difficult periods and acknowledged staff contributions. Some staff had high workloads which was not always acknowledged by the practice. Some staff felt that turnover of staff at the practice had impacted on their wellbeing. A new addition to the management team was viewed as positive by practice staff and as a result, a greater emphasis was being placed on improving staff wellbeing with some early changes already seen.