Askern Medical 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 requires improvement.

At this assessment, the rating is now 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.

At the last assessment we scored this quality statement as 2 because we received negative feedback from patients.

At this assessment we received feedback from 13 patients and those who commented on how they were treated described a positive experience.

Friends and Family Test data over the past 12 months was mostly positive. Feedback from members of the Patient Participation Group was also very positive regarding how they were treated.

We reviewed patient records shared by the provider during the assessment, which reflected a positive approach to care.

Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy. Staff we spoke with understood Gillick competency and there was a process to ensure young people had control over their own privacy and the amount of parental involvement in managing their care and support.

We were provided with several examples to demonstrate the practice’s approach towards caring for patients. These included supporting over 90 families between 2022 and 2024 by setting up a practice food bank, and offering a monthly bereavement service for patients over 65 who had experienced a loss.

However, National GP Patient Survey data (30/12/2024 to 01/04/2025) showed that the practice’s scores were significantly below or below national averages in some areas. For example:

• The percentage of respondents who stated that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at listening to them was 66.59% compared to the national average of 86.9%.
• The percentage of respondents who stated that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at treating them with care and concern was 62.9% compared to the national average of 85.6%: and

The percentage of respondents who stated that during their last appointment they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was 81.1% compared to the national average of 92.5%.

We found that the service mostly treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Staff were allocated lead roles in the service and had received training to support them in this. For example, carers, veteran and Traveller champions.

Patients’ personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were understood and met.

Patient communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care.

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

Staff helped patients and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services.

While the above positives were noted, it was also noted that the service’s score in the National GP Patient Survey relating to patients being involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment was below average at 81% (as compared to the national average of 91%.

We found the service had a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services.

There was a system for ensuring those requiring urgent referrals or an urgent appointment to discuss results of tests were in place. Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams.

Results from the latest National GP Patient Survey were slightly lower than local and national averages for patients knowing what the next step would be after contacting their GP practice (71% compared to the national average of 83%) and knowing what the next step would be within 2 days of contacting their GP practice (92% compared to the national average of 93%).

Our clinical searches showed that once a patient was seen their immediate and ongoing needs were fully assessed. This included their clinical needs and their mental and physical wellbeing.

At the previous assessment we scored this quality statement as 1. This was due to high levels of negative staff feedback.

At this assessment feedback from staff was mixed. Although some positive experiences were reported, concerns were also raised, indicating that aspects of management and support were having a negative impact on staff experience. For example, staff highlighted to us ongoing pressures related to staffing levels, expectations to work additional hours, annual leave and challenges covering leave, workload, being listened to, limited protected administrative time, and lone working concerns.

Feedback we received from staff about the recent changes in the leadership team was positive, particularly in reference to the non-clinical leadership. Most staff reported that they felt there was a commitment to staff safety and wellbeing, feeling supported and able to speak up without fear of blame following these changes. Additional benefits for staff were reported to make a positive impact on staff wellbeing such as free weekly yoga, fruit and one day annual leave known as a birthday holiday.

Leaders had carried out a staff survey in March 2026 and put an action plan in place to address areas identified for improvement. For example, they had introduced an Employee of the Month initiative. Staff feedback in this survey was mostly positive. The survey results provided to us showed a significant increase in staff satisfaction.