LONGROYDE 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. Overall, we found that the practice provided a caring service. Individuals’ needs and preferences were understood and if possible, they were offered choice in their care and treatment. Staff had a clear understanding of patient demographic and respected any needs patient may have, whether these be cultural, social or religious.

This is the first assessment 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.

We reviewed the results from the National GP Patient Survey 2024, the practice received 119 completed surveys; we saw that 94% of people said the professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last appointment. This was higher than the local and national average of 85%. Additionally, 93% of patients said the healthcare professional they saw was good at listening to them during their last appointment, again this was higher than the national average of 87%. Further to this we received multiple examples of patient feedback where patients said they felt cared for and listened to and were treated kindly.

Staff members we spoke with told us that the practice treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, with patients’ privacy and dignity being respected.

Staff also told us that they understood the demographic of patients within the practice and accommodated people from different cultures and backgrounds and worked to reduce barriers to care, by providing interpreters and longer appointments or adjustments for mobility impairments.

The practice held a list of carers and encouraged any people who held caring responsibilities to keep the practice informed so they could offer additional 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, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

In the latest National GP Patient Survey, the practice scored 92% in the question, ‘were people involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment’. This was slightly higher than the local average of 91%. Patients also fed back to us via Give feedback on Care on the Care Quality Commission website, that they felt they were involved in their care.

The practice had just started supporting a local learning disability care home. Before this started, they discussed the services and patient’s needs.

The practice completed learning disability reviews and arranged these to meet individuals’ needs for example, longer appointments or arranging homes visits if this was required.

The practice had access to an interpreter service; a member of staff could provide British sign language (BSL) support. The practice noted patients’ personal needs and preferences on file to ensure communication needs were met, this enabled patients to be fully involved in their care. The practice did not have a hearing loop but advised us they regularly reviewed whether this was needed and would purchase one at any time it was deemed necessary.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The practice provided longer appointments for patients who required additional support to allow them to participate in their care.They also offered appointments at quieter times, telephone consultations to reduce time spent at the surgery and home visits where clinicians considered this necessary

Staff helped patients and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services.

The practice was a veteran accredited site.

The practice told us it 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.

Staff members we spoke to were aware of what action to take in the event of a medical emergency, where to find emergency equipment and were aware of how they could escalate concerns and raise an alarm.

Although the practice had no formal clinical triage policy or triage process, staff were able to sign post patients to external services when applicable. Staff were trained to be aware of red flag presenting conditions such as shortness of breath and would sign post patients to call or visit emergency care. Staff were trained in sepsis management, and a GP was always on site if they had any further concerns.The practice reserved a nominal amount of appointments per day, these were offered to all patients whether they were calling for an emergency or general appointment. Meaning that patients were able to be seen on the day for both emergencies and in some cases non urgent appointments.

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

Staff told us leaders valued them. Leaders had taken steps to recognise and meet the wellbeing needs of staff, which included the necessary resources and facilities for safe working, such as regular breaks and rest areas. Leaders discussed staff well-being and workload in practice meetings.

Leaders had an open-door policy; staff we spoke to were positive about their employment at the practice. Staff members stated they felt supported in their development and although there was no formal staff survey, staff told us they felt comfortable to raise any concerns.

The practice had policies in place that covered staff welfare, for example bullying and harassment, and the practice had a freedom to speak up policy with both an internal and external freedom to speak up guardian.

Staff reported being supported if they were struggling at work. Leaders informed us of a team building day they had coming up.