Ilford Lane 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 the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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 aimed to treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Patients' privacy and dignity were protected by clear, consistently described processes. Intimate examinations followed a structured approach. For example, a chaperone was always offered regardless of whether declined, the door was closed and the patient screened by a curtain when appropriate. A private room was available away from reception for confidential conversations. Telephone conversations were conducted discreetly, in an administrative room behind the reception area, where the doors could be closed.

The practice respected young people’s wishes regarding confidentiality, subject to safeguarding responsibilities. Gillick competence was assessed individually, without a fixed lower age limit.

The Friends and Family Test was reviewed monthly and results were generally positive. In the most recent survey, all 20 respondents rated the service as good or very good, with 15 selecting very good and 5 selecting good.

National GP Patient Survey results for the last appointment, however, showed the practice below both national and Integrated Care System averages across this domain, with 69% rated the healthcare professional good at listening (national 87%, Integrated Care System 83%), 75% rated them good at treating the patient with care and concern (national 86%, Integrated Care System 82%), and 83% reported confidence and trust in the healthcare professional (national 93%, Integrated Care System 91%). The survey had a fourteen percent completion rate, from 109 of 778 sent, and the published results themselves note that comparisons at this scale may not be statistically significant. In direct response to the survey gap identified here, the practice created and evidenced a specific audit of kindness, compassion and dignity, and produced an action plan targeting the listening and care-and-concern scores that sat below national and Integrated Care System averages.

The practice stated that the difference between its processes and survey feedback reflected the challenge of meeting complex or communication needs within 10-minute appointments. The practice recognised the challenge and was working towards it by developing a practice-funded plan to convert part of an oversized waiting area into an additional consulting room, intended to ease pressure on clinicians and allow more attentive, unhurried consultations.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.