Dr Kanjana Paramanathan

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 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 78% 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 79% of people found reception and administrative team helpful, this was slightly below the national average of 83% and in line with the local average of 79%.

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 staff we spoke with were aware of the needs of the practice’s population 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 helped patients and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services. The practice had access to a social prescriber 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.

The service had systems and processes in place to identify and respond to people’s urgent healthcare needs. Staff understood how to escalate concerns and ensure people received timely access to appropriate care and treatment.

There was a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams.

The practice had access to a range of clinical services through the PCN which included mental health practitioners, pharmacists and physiotherapists.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to 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 they were given opportunities to develop and were encouraged to discuss any areas they were interested in learning.