Uni-City Medical 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 practice involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first inspection for this practice since its new registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

This service scored 65 (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 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 patients’ privacy. Current national GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. During our onsite visit, we observed staff respecting patient privacy and speaking to patients in a respectful way.

The practice did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. The practice utilised language line and booked double appointments when needed. However, accessible information was limited for those requiring a different language format. There was a poster in the reception area informing patients that staff were trained in British Sign Language, however when we spoke to staff they confirmed they were not trained. The practice immediately removed the poster in view of this information. There was a hearing loop available, and reception staff had a microphone and speaker for patients hard of hearing.

The practice 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 practices. People reported high levels of satisfaction with the practice as they knew what the next steps would be after contacting the practice. Systems, processes and guidance were in place to inform staff on how to maintain patient’s independence, choice and control. These included staff training in obtaining consent and supporting clinical staff with advanced life decision-making policies. Other staff training included awareness of the Mental Capacity Act and learning disability and autism.

The practice 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. Patients reported a good response to accessing the practice by telephone. There was a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to the practice. Routine appointments could be booked 3 weeks in advance, however annual leave impacted access for patients. For example, we saw that on a fully staffed day 120 routine appointments would be available, however there were 3 doctors on leave on the day of our inspection, and the number of appointments were reduced to 66 per day. We asked the practice what had been learnt from this due to the significant appointment shortfall. They told us in the future they would not allow so many GP’s to be off at the same time. Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams.

The practice did not always care about or promoted the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable some staff to deliver person-centred care. One staff member told us there was a need for better communication across the teams. Staff did not feel that they were being updated with events within the practice. Team meetings were not being held on a regular basis. Staff did not consider they were aware of any incidents and learning from these was not shared. Staff also told us they were not receiving regular supervisions or appraisals. There was no evidence of a staff survey having been conducted to seek feedback from staff.