Dr Murthy Motupalli Also known as Blackburn Road 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

Staff we spoke with generally described a caring and patient-centred approach to their work, and some staff reported feeling supported, with consideration given to their wellbeing. However, this was not the experience of all staff across the service.

A patient-centred culture was not always evident, fully embedded or experienced uniformly. Teamworking was variable, and staff identified that communication between teams and across the wider service required improvement. Limitations in communication restricted the consistency of care delivery and staff experience.

Patient feedback was mixed. Although there were some recent improvements, feedback shared directly with CQC included negative experiences, indicating that the quality of care and patient experience was not maintained. Overall, while there were a few positive examples of compassionate care, these were not sufficiently evidenced across the whole service to ensure all patients received a high standard of care.

This service scored 45 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff said they treated patients with kindness, empathy and compassion and told us they gave people appropriate and timely information to understand their care, treatment, or condition. The GP patient survey showed that 73% of people who responded, said the healthcare professional was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment compared with the local result of 75% and the national result of 74%.

We observed limited levels of privacy at the open reception area. Reception staff were working in very close proximity to each other behind a small reception desk with no screens. This made it difficult for them to manage telephone calls without overhearing each other’s conversations and increased the risk that patients could overhear sensitive information being discussed. We could clearly hear conversations from GP rooms, and a member of staff told us that doors were sometimes left open during consultations. On 3 occasions we entered a clinical room where there were no staff, and identification cards had been left in computers which were turned on. This meant that anyone entering the room could access sensitive data under that person’s identity.

In addition, patients waiting to be seen were seated near the reception desk, and those queuing were standing directly next to each other. These environmental factors reduced privacy and confidentiality for patients when discussing personal or sensitive information at reception.

We saw that some people’s needs were assessed and elements of treatment was provided according to their individual requirements. Of the 103 people who completed the National GP Patient Survey, 92% had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to during their last general practice appointment compared with the local result of 93% and the national result of 93%. Staff we spoke to said that people’s individual needs and equality characteristics were understood, and services were provided to meet these, however clinical records we reviewed did not demonstrate this. For example, in relation to language barriers. People’s communication needs were not always identified and met to enable them to be fully involved in their care, with translation services and information being available when required.

Staff we spoke with said the service supported people’s independence, choice and involvement in decisions about their care, treatment and wellbeing. However, this was not always experienced by all patients. The practice population was 27% Asian or other ethnicity, the provider told us that he spoke 4 languages, and information on the website could be read in other languages. A social prescriber, together with other support services including a Mental Health Practitioner, Health and Wellbeing Coach and wider community and Primary Care Network services, was available to help identify patients' social, emotional and practical needs and link them with relevant resources. However, we found evidence that communication and language barriers were not always effectively managed. Staff said they were able to signpost patients and carers to advocacy or community‑based services, but we saw no evidence of tools or systems to ensure consistency of this, such as flow charts for reception staff. We did not see evidence that people’s independence was always supported in line with best practice guidance.

Feedback from patients who completed the GP patient survey indicated that 83% felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment which was lower than the local result of 91% and the national result of 90%. In addition, only 58% of respondents reported having enough support from local services or organisations, compared with local and national averages of 70% and 69%.

Staff we spoke to felt that the service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff said they responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress and we saw some evidence of this. The practice also worked with a range of services and organisations, including social prescribing, mental health support services and third sector organisations, to help respond to people's wider health and wellbeing needs. However, the systems in place did not demonstrate that this was the case for all patients and only 52% of people who responded to the GP patient survey described their overall experience of this GP practice as good. This was 26% lower than the local result of 78% and 23% lower than the national result of 75%.

We did not find sufficient evidence that the provider promoted staff wellbeing or effectively supported staff to deliver person‑centred care. While some staff told us they felt valued by leaders, this view was not shared by all staff we spoke with.The provider had not taken adequate steps to recognise or respond to the wellbeing needs of staff. This included a lack of action to ensure safe and supportive working environments that promoted privacy, dignity and wellbeing. Some staff reported that they did not always feel supported when they were experiencing difficulties at work.Opportunities for staff to provide feedback, raise concerns or suggest improvements to the service or their working experience were limited, and staff told us that when concerns were raised, they were not always responded to effectively. This reduced assurance that staff felt listened to, supported or empowered within the service.