Trinity 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.

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

The service had arrangements to promote people’s privacy. For example, chairs were located away from reception desks whenever possible, and private rooms could be made available to discuss confidential matters. Chaperones were also available to patients and staff had been trained to deliver this role. Staff induction and training included dignity, privacy and communication skills. During our interviews with staff, we found that they had a good understanding of the privacy and dignity needs of patients and sought to meet these.

The service implemented monitoring and quality improvement processes, some of which looked at how staff interacted with patients. This included audits of consultations and calls, and reviews of complaints and patient feedback. Feedback trends, if hitting a threshold for individual staff members, would prompt follow-up actions such as staff reflection and the agreement of improvement actions.

Staff we spoke with understood Gillick competency 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 a competency framework which clearly set out expectations at all levels around partnership working behaviours.

Patient feedback data for the service was generally positive, with 2026 NHS Friends and Family Test data showing 90.9% satisfaction with the service.

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.

We saw that the communication needs of patients were met. For example, translation and interpretation support, which included British Sign Language support, could be organised, and the service had hearing loops available in all 7 sites.

The communication requirements of patients were recorded on the patient record as were other needs, such as necessary physical adjustments and this was available to the service to enable them to better meet the needs of patients. Patients were also able to access an open site directly to organise an appointment, should they be unable to do so through the normal method of appointment booking e.g. via the telephone.

To facilitate effective consultations and to support patients the service could make longer appointments available for those with additional needs. In addition, staff had received training to support those with specific needs such as those with a learning disability and autism.

The service promoted patients independence, so they knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients were able to access appointments with a range of clinical staff depending on their specific needs. This included access to specific clinics and services such as respiratory support and testing.

The service promoted patients independence, so they knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. The service ensured verbal consent was granted before examination and treatment and that this consent was documented.

Reception staff and call handlers had been trained in the principles of care navigation and were able to signpost patients to services appropriate to their needs including advocacy and community-based services. Patients were able to request a chaperone at all operating sites.

The practice listened to and understood patients’ needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to patients’ needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Requests for acute appointments were subject to assessment via clinical triage, and this was supported by care navigation to ensure patients received appropriate and responsive care. Pre-bookable appointments reflected ongoing patient need.

Staff we spoke with knew how to respond when a patient needed immediate or urgent attention. There were systems in place to support this, including the use of panic alarms, and availability of emergency equipment and medicines. We saw in staff records that they had received training in basic life support and sepsis awareness. The service had produced an escalation protocol when urgent care was required. All staff that we spoke with had a good understanding of how to support the needs of a deteriorating patient or those in crisis. Outcomes from appointments which required ongoing support were tasked back to the patient’s own GP practice.

The service had developed a frequent attender protocol, and regularly discussed these with the patient’s own GP to better understand and respond to their needs.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.Staff we spoke with told us they were valued by leaders. Leaders had taken steps to recognise and meet the wellbeing needs of staff and had demonstrated a commitment to staff wellbeing by providing appropriate resources and facilities to support safe working conditions, and designated rest areas.

Leaders and managers told us that they cared about the wellbeing of their staff and sought to support and enable them to always deliver person-centred care. In 2026 Conexus Healthcare CIC had been accredited for Investors in People. On a daily basis staff had direct access support available to them from a duty manager. Other forms of support included forums, training events, and contact via messaging apps and the GP Care Wakefield App.

The service had adopted and implemented a number of policies, protocols and support mechanisms to promote staff wellbeing and development. This included lone working and bullying and harassment policies, and reasonable adjustment policies, and access to occupational health support. We also heard how staff could have slots booked out of their rota if they needed time to recover after a distressing call or incident.

We saw evidence of staff development and the provision of coaching and mentoring support.

Staff we spoke with or received feedback from reported feeling supported by the organisation and their colleagues. Results from staff surveys were analysed and reviewed by the management team. Feedback from these surveys was generally very positive with results from the 2025 survey showing 96% of clinical staff and 98% of non-clinical staff would recommend working for GP Care Wakefield. In addition, 92% of clinical staff and 89% of non-clinical staff reported being satisfied with the onboarding process. The service had developed an action plan for areas where staff had reported lower satisfaction such as in being valued and recognised.