Dr Manjit Singh

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.

National GP Patient Survey data showed 80% of people said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last general practice appointment. This was slightly below the local average of 82% and the national average of 86%.

Further results from the national patient survey showed 76% of people found reception and administrative team helpful, this was below the local average of 79% and the national average of 83%.

Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy. 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 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.

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.

Resources were available such as interpreters to support patients who did not have English as a first language and the staff spoke a range of languages and were able to provide support to the practice population. Staff we spoke with were aware of the needs of the patients and gave us examples on how they supported patients. For example, appointments were offered at different times of the day to suit people's needs.

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

Staff told us they helped patients and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services, however we were not assured that carers were supported fully as some of the staff we spoke with were unaware of how to access the social prescribers through the Primary Care Network (PCN) who provided support and information on local services within the community. The people we spoke with on the day of the onsite assessment told us they felt included in decisions about their care and treatment.

National GP Patient Survey data found that 90% had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to during their last general practice appointment, which was in line with the local average of 91% and above the national average of 93%.

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 knew how to respond when a patient needed urgent attention and knew the processes to follow to ensure emergency support was given. We reviewed staff training files and found that staff were up to date with their Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) training.

The provider understood their patient population and the provider worked with the PCN and supported local service developments. Continuity of care was offered to patients where required or when patients requested consultations with specific clinicians. The provider made reasonable adjustments to ensure the premises were accessible to patients who required disabled access.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The practice staff said they felt valued by the leadership team. We spoke with a range of staff on the day and found staff were positive about working at the practice and the support they received. Staff told us that they had been well supported when needed and adjustments had been made when required to ensure that staff were able to do their role effectively. Staff told us they were given opportunities to develop and were encouraged to discuss any areas they were interested in learning.

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 working hours and staff rotas.