Wellspring 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. We rated this key question good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.

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

We observed staff treating people with kindness and respect within the waiting room. Arrangements were in place to promote peoples’ privacy. Staff that chaperoned people were aware of their responsibilities in maintaining a person’s dignity and safety during an intimate examination. People’s religious and cultural needs were respected.

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 had processes in place for people who found it hard to access services by utilising interpreters and directing people to relevant services where they may need extra support. For example, they utilised the PCN employed social prescriber link worker to refer and support people for smoking cessation, weight management and exercise advice and enrolment at local gyms and walking clubs.

The service’s website had the provision of displaying content to suit people’s needs. For example, translation to other languages.

National GP Patient Survey data and feedback received from people reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. For example, 80.2% of respondents stated that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at treating them with care and concern. This was comparable than the national average of 85.6%.

Feedback from people who used the service was positive and staff at all levels were described as kind, understanding and helpful.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatments met people’s needs and preferences. Patient communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care.

National GP Patient Survey data reflected that people felt involved in decisions about their care. For example, 84.6% of respondents stated that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. This was comparable with the national average of 91.2%.

The practice supported all people, including refugees and homeless people, to access healthcare. 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 service worked with a PCN social prescriber link worker to promote people’s independence and help with well-being and social problems by referring to external stakeholders. For example, services to improve wellbeing and access to services to help with social isolation such as local knitting and sewing groups, community allotment group and coffee mornings.

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. Processes were in place to record when new people registered with caring responsibilities and the practice routinely checked on carer’s wellbeing.

The service were an accredited registered veteran friendly practice. Accreditation meant that the service had an awareness of some of the specific needs of veterans and could better identify and treat Veterans, refer them, where appropriate, to dedicated mental health and wellbeing services and the “Veterans Physical Health and Wellbeing Service” without discrimination.

The service launched a targeted campaign to encourage people to participate in the national bowel screening campaign. The service used a large walk-though blow-up bowel located in the waiting room inviting eligible people to view how the digestive system worked, and the risks associated with bowel cancer. The lead GP also recorded podcasts on why the bowel screening program was so important and links were sent to eligible people.

The service completed weekly ward rounds providing medical care to registered people residing in local care homes. People were treated with dignity and respect and investigations and examinations were carried out in the best interest of the person.

People were supported to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment and wellbeing. For example, the National Patient Survey results evidenced that 84.6% of the people surveyed stated that during their last appointment they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.

People were supported to communicate with the service using their preferred communication method. For example, people were able to contact the service by email, telephone, SMS text messaging and letter. Interpreters were available for people in their own language. Sign language and hearing loop were available for people who had hearing difficulties.

People were referred to social prescribers for loneliness. For example, a knit and natter group was available for people to join. The service referred people to the community hub to access health and wellbeing coach, financial support and talking therapies.

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.

The service used feedback from the National GP Patient Survey, the friends and family test, the Patient Participation Group, complaints, compliments and comments, to respond to people’s needs. The practice maintained a complaints, compliments and suggestions log which was reviewed regularly with the practice team, to identify any emerging trends or themes of concern, and responded to these quickly. The service had introduced a new telephone system and triage system for appointments. The triage system ensured people with immediate needs had access to services when they needed them and promoted the use of the online system for appointments and online consultations. Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support.

Feedback from people who used the service reported positive experiences with prompt responses to appointment requests.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. We collected feedback from eighteen staff members through questionnaires submitted to us as part of this assessment. Staff told us they were valued by leaders. Staff were positive about the support they received from leaders and staff told us they were listened to and were supported when they required additional support.

Leaders told us that they encouraged personal development and continued to invest in staff, diversifying and developing skills and knowledge to ensure that they had a highly skilled, resilient and adaptable workforce to meet the needs of people and communities. Leaders said that they had immense pride in their team.

The service had commenced and celebrated long service awards for team members. Leaders told us that they listen to their staff. For example, staff feedback that there was no comfy seating in their rest area. As a result, leaders purchased a comfortable sofa for the team. Leaders appointed a “social secretary” to arrange social events such as summer and Christmas parties.

The service provided written guidance and resources to help staff perform their role competently and there were good communications systems and updates for staff which promoted staff wellbeing.

Staff told us that suggestions were acted upon and changes implemented. Staff informed us that the practice had a positive blame free culture. For example, complaints were investigated, and findings were shared positively to enable learning from complaints. Staff felt supported to raise concerns and were treated them with compassion and understanding.