Adelaide 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 at the current location. 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 practice 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 patients’ privacy, although there were some issues with privacy in the reception areas. National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. The results showed that 84% of patients considered that at their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at treating them with care and concern, compared to 86% nationally and locally. Staff we spoke with understood Gillick competency.

The practice usually treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. They took account of people’s abilities, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Patient communication needs were usually met to enable them to be fully involved in their care. Results from the National GP Patient Survey were slightly below average. They indicated that 82% of patients felt the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment, compared to 87% nationally and 88% locally. 69% of patients felt the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at considering their mental wellbeing during their last general practice appointment, compared with 75% nationally and 74% locally. The practice had recently appointed LGBTQ+ champions, but no training had been arranged at the time of our assessment, and their roles had not been defined. There was no carers' champion.

The practice did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

There was no effective system to triage patients in order to prioritise needs when allocating appointments. We were given conflicting information by different GP partners, staff and managers about the system in place, with 1 partner telling us that the practice was aspiring for reception to triage service users and provide care navigation, but it was not in place yet. We saw a triage form, but staff and managers told us it was not being used due to the practice being short-staffed. There was no assurance that patients were receiving care and treatment in line with their needs.

The practice did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

There was no effective system to triage patients in order to prioritise needs when allocating appointments. We were given conflicting information by different GP partners, staff and managers about the system in place, with 1 partner telling us that the practice was aspiring for reception to triage service users and provide care navigation, but it was not in place yet. We saw a triage form, but staff and managers told us it was not being used due to the practice being short-staffed. There was no assurance that patients were receiving care and treatment in line with their needs.

The practice did not promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Although senior leaders told us they were approachable and had an open-door policy, we did not find evidence of this. As part of the assessment, we asked staff for their feedback. We received a high amount of feedback and on the whole staff did not feel supported or valued by leaders. We heard that a lot of staff had recently left so the practice was short staffed. Staff reported they could not raise concerns, and that the GP partners/senior leaders did not listen to staff. Communication was said to be particularly poor.

Leaders told us they had not carried out a staff survey but would do one when they felt the time was right.