Lanchester 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 service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first inspection for this service since the provider registered the service with CQC. This key question has been rated as requires improvement.

This service scored 45 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We received mixed feedback regarding if the service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respected their privacy and dignity.

The National GP Patient Survey results were above the national average for example;

Patients who stated that the last time they had a general practice appointment, the healthcare professional was good or very good at listening to them (30/12/2024 to 01/04/2025) was 94.7% compared to the national average 86.9%

Patients who stated that the last time they had a general practice appointment, the healthcare professional was good or very good at treating them with care and concern, was 91.4% compared to the national average 85.6%

Patients who stated that during their last GP appointment they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was 97.1%, compared to the national average 92.%.

NHS friends and family test data from April to June 2025 showed that the practice averaged over 80% as being very good and an average of 1.6% as poor. There were a high number of positive comments regarding staff, including professional, courteous, knowledgeable and friendly staff who listened to patients.

Staff told us they felt they were caring with patients and tried their best in difficult circumstances to provide good care. They could build a good rapport with patients due to the practice being small.

The PPG were concerned that patients were not being cared for in a kind and considerate way. There were many issues raised in relation to care and treatment and access.

The PPG told us they had a good relationship with the reception team and their managers.

The commission received 66 items of feedback from patients in the last 12 months. From these 46 items were positive and 20 were negative. Positive feedback included friendly and professional staff, prompt and efficient reception staff and friendly and helpful nurses. The negative more recent feedback raised concerns regarding access to appointments, medication reviews and errors, clinical care and staff behaviours and attitudes.

We received complaints from patients, staff and whistleblowers that patients were being called by the provider with test results late at night. This was difficult for elderly patients as sometimes not enough time was given for them to get to the phone and they missed the call. Results were being actioned and being updated on the NHS app when the surgery was closed, and patients could not contact the surgery for advice.

The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. Information from our clinical searches showed that care and treatment did not always take into account patients individual needs, or that they received appropriate care for various conditions according to guidance and best practice. Communication with patients could be poor, records showed that they were not always consulted about the risks of medication nor were their needs assessed correctly.

The practice had carers identified via their register. Information was displayed in the waiting area giving carers help and advice. The PPG held a carers coffee morning at the practice in conjunction with carers week and the local carers association who provided advice for carers.

We looked at our assessment for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them with advice and support. We saw that this did not always happen. We saw a poor standard of clinical care and oversight of long-term conditions.

Therefore, we could not establish if patients knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care if care was poor.

Some feedback from patients, staff, whistleblowers and the PPG told us that patients with immediate needs did not always have access to services. Access to healthcare appointments was poor. Some staff reported communication being poor.

Any feedback or learning which could assist the practice with any shortcomings which could be improved were not available as there was no analysis of significant events or complaints for patterns or trends. Feedback from patients was not listened to.

The service did not care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. This posed a risk to both staff well-being and patient care.

We sent out questionnaires to staff. We received feedback from several whistle blowers. We spoke with staff on our site visit.

There was a clear divide between staff who supported the provider and who did not. Regardless of this almost all of the people we spoke with said it was a turbulent and unstable time for them, the culture in their workplace was poor and stressful and staff morale was low. Some described the atmosphere as ‘toxic’, with concerns about psychological safety.

Some staff reported feeling afraid to raise issues, citing that management was unapproachable. Some individuals described experiences of bullying, while others reported that colleagues had been threatened or undermined. Additionally, concerns were raised about the providers attitude towards staff, which was perceived as dismissive or hostile and unprofessional regarding staff confidentiality. Some staff said there had been threats of employment termination. Some staff told us they were not supported to carry out their work. Others said they came to work and worked hard together to keep the patients as safe as they could and tried their best to provide a good service in very difficult circumstances.

We raised these issues with the provider. They blamed the issues at the practice on the staff. They said governance issues were not their fault. We had to remind the provider several times during our assessment that it was their responsibility to ensure they delivered effective governance to provide quality and safety at the practice.