Castle Healthcare Practice

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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Outstanding.

This service scored 95 (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.

Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy. National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. The GP National Survey Data for 2025 showed that 94.6% of people felt that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at listening to them. This was above the national average of 86.9%. Ninety-nine percent of people stated that during their last appointment they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to - this was above the national average of 92.5%. The practice conducted their own surveys and collected feedback form patients after each appointment. Their survey analysis over the last 12 months showed 98% of people who responded to the survey felt that the reception and administrative team were very or fairly helpful.

The PPG felt all staff at the practice were approachable and listened to and valued their views. A lead GP attended meetings regularly to discuss their area of speciality and discuss input from the PPG.

We spoke with 6 patients and received feedback through our website from 7 patients. Feedback regarding the reception team and clinical staff was overwhelmingly positive. All patients we spoke with told us staff were approachable, kind and patient. We saw patients could contact the practice in a variety of ways, via telephone, online and in person. If required, the practice had quiet spaces available where patients could speak with reception staff to discuss the reason they wanted to see a clinician. One patient told us “I don’t like getting my bloods done and the nurse was very calming and patient”. Another patient told us they had a learning disability, and the GP is incredibly “supportive and kind” and they felt “comfortable talking about personal issues with them”.

Leaders went the extra mile when supporting families following a patient death, with a phone call from their GP, followed by a card from the practice consisting of support information. Staff told us leaders also shared this information with other team members including the reception team to increase their awareness around the support families may need when they contact the practice.

All staff we spoke with understood Gillick competency (medical law to determine if a child under sixteen years of age can consent to their own medical treatment), and there was a process to ensure young adults had control over their own privacy and the amount of parental involvement in managing their care and 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.

Patient communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care. Staff had access to interpreters and language line when required.

We saw evidence of support tools and advice to aid people’s independence and support. For example, all staff had received training about autism and learning disabilities and were able to support people who found it difficult to be independent and to access services. The practice offered quiet waiting areas and fidget aids for patients requiring this support. Staff told us some patients were also offered the choice of waiting in their car until it was time for their appointment if they struggled with the sensory environment of the practice.

The practice was an accredited registered veteran friendly practice. Accreditation meant that the service had an awareness of some of the specific needs of veterans and as part of the health commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant, they had a dedicated clinician who has a specialist knowledge of military related health conditions and veteran specific health services.

The service held a register of carers and appointed a dedicated carers’ champion who supported this group of people. Carers were signposted to support groups, and all staff were aware of the carer’s champion role. There were 455 people who were on the service’s carers register and who regularly received contact from the service. Processes were in place to record when new people registered with caring responsibilities and the practice routinely checked on carer’s wellbeing. Carers were offered vaccinations including the COVID and flu vaccine and offered additional support such as the ability to pre book appointments and have, multiple appointments booked together to prevent them having to attend the practice multiple times.

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

Searches of the practice’s clinical records system showed that patient had comprehensive reviews and involvement in long term conditions management. This included diabetes care, and the development of pregnancy prevention plans where patients were on medication with caused an increased risk of birth defects, which were well managed and reviewed as expected. The practice had a carer’s champion, who managed the carers list.

Direct feedback to us showed that people felt they received appropriate follow up. One patient told us they felt the GP had “saved their life”, they had recently discovered a mole, which turned out to be cancerous, and their GP had acted promptly in having it removed.

Staff helped patients and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services, through providing information and signposting through the social prescriber.

The service 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.

There was a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams. The service had a daily clinical triage and on call team in place consisting of 2 GPs and 1 nurse. This team saw patients requiring the need to see a clinician on the day and supported staff who triaged calls including those requiring immediate assistance. This team were also available to take calls from partners such as safeguarding teams and schools or respond to emergencies on site.

The practice had a panic button system in place where staff could request immediate support in the case of emergencies. All staff were aware of the protocols in place to responding to emergencies.

Patients we spoke with told us where they required staff would always assist to obtain a same day appointment. One patient told us they had attended the practice for routine blood tests and spoke with reception about another concern and was seen by a GP on the same afternoon.

The service always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

We spoke with 16 staff members and received feedback from 33 staff from our staff feedback survey. All staff we spoke with and received feedback from told us they felt valued by leaders. They had access to management whenever they needed, and they had an open-door policy. We saw leaders gathered feedback after practice training days, where they asked staff about future training sessions, they would like leaders to hold.

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. Managers took a conscious decision to ensure all staff took a lunch break together to allow them to share any concerns and build team spirit. They listened to staff feedback and responded accordingly. For example, reception staff had recently requested new chairs which were being ordered. Leaders collected feedback from staff and acted on suggestions. For example, through recent implementation of the daily 4-hour phlebotomy clinic it was recognised that 1 individual delivering this service for 4 hours was impacting staff wellbeing. As a result, the delivery of this service was split between 2 staff members for 2 hours at a time. Staff told us they felt valued as their feedback and wellbeing was important to leaders.

Staff reported being supported if they were struggling at work. Staff members who had returned to work after long periods of sickness or maternity leave were supported with workplace adjustments to maintain a work life balance and suit their needs.

Staff files we reviewed showed all staff had annual appraisals where development and aspirations were a key feature. We saw many staff members had developed into additional roles through training and supervision. For example, nurses that had developed into nurse leads and 1 GP who had trained at the practice was now a GP partner.

We saw team building days were established within the practice. The practice planned regular PLT days where they shared learning and discussed governance and clinical practice.