Earls Barton 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 its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as good.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Patient feedback highlighted that some patients experienced rudeness from reception staff, which made it harder for them to access medical care and treatment that met their needs. Results from the GP Patient Survey showed that 78.3% of patients stated that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or good at treating them with care and concern. This was below the national average of 85.6%. During the onsite assessment, we observed staff who were helpful, polite, and kind to patients both on the telephone and in person. Staff demonstrated awareness of the needs of the patient population and were able to offer a holistic approach to supporting people. They displayed understanding and a non-judgemental attitude towards patients and showed respect for people’s personal, cultural, social, and religious needs. Staff told us they provided people with appropriate and timely information to help them understand their care, treatment, or condition.

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. Systems were in place to make sure patients were treated in ways that suited them. During registration, patients were able to highlight any requirements or preferences that were important to them. These needs were then recorded in the patient system, allowing all staff to be aware of individual preferences. The practice made reasonable adjustments for patients with disabilities and offered interpreting and translation services for those whose first language was not English, including British Sign Language support. Additionally, information could be provided on paper rather than digitally for patients who had trouble using technology, ensuring that communication needs were met effectively.

 

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. National GP Patient Survey data showed that 89.2% of the respondents felt involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment, which is below the national average of 91.2%. Staff respected the choices and decisions people made. The service displayed posters and leaflets containing information to support people to make healthier choices. The practice website detailed how to access information in alternative formats such as large print, easy read, audio recording or braille or if an interpreter or advocate was required. The service had disabled access and hearing loops.

Staff we spoke with knew the process for referring patients to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams. The use of agency staff helped leaders ensure there were enough clinicians to meet people’s needs. However, some patients told us they had experienced delays in responses from clinicians regarding feedback on test results and instances of miscommunication. Patients with ongoing or complex needs said they often saw different clinicians at each appointment, which made continuity of care more difficult. Leaders told us they were actively recruiting permanent staff to address gaps in care and reduce reliance on temporary clinicians. Following our onsite visit, the practice confirmed that a new clinician had been appointed to improve access and continuity for patients.

Staff were positive about working at the service. They felt supported by colleagues and leaders both professionally and personally. Leaders were conscious of staff wellbeing. Team meetings gave staff the opportunity to raise concerns.