Dalton Surgery

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 practice 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 remained 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 practice staff treated patients with kindness, empathy and compassion, and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff understood the needs of patients, and used this knowledge to enhance care and treatment, as well as improving patient experience. Feedback from those not substantively employed by the practice, such as locums, confirmed they were treated with kindness and respect.

The recent move to a digital triage-based appointment and consultation system allowed patients to request services confidentially. Staff also told us that patients who came to the reception had access to a separate room should they wish to discuss with reception staff subjects of a confidential and private nature. Conversations at the reception desk were also masked by music to aid confidentiality.

The needs of patients with a disability were considered with disabled parking being available, and access to assistive equipment such as a hearing loop. Staff we spoke with who acted as chaperones confirmed they had been trained, and were fully aware of their responsibilities in respect of the maintenance of patient safety and dignity during examinations. Consultation rooms had curtains fitted to aid 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.

National GP Patient Survey data showed that people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. For example, in 2025 88% of respondents said that the healthcare professional they saw or spoke with was good at listening to them during their last appointment. This compared to local and national averages of 87%. Furthermore, 89% of respondents said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke with was good at treating them with care and concern during their last appointment. This compared to local and national average figures of 86%.

We saw that the practice treated patients as individuals, and made sure care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. Patients’ personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were understood and met.

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 surgery had a hearing loop installed.

The communication requirements of patients were recorded on the patient record as were other needs, such as necessary physical adjustments, and home visiting requirements. The practice supported transgender patients, and we saw that procedures were in place to ensure services such as screening were consistently delivered to these patients.

To facilitate effective consultations and to support patients the practice made longer appointments available for those with additional needs such as patients with a learning disability. The practice worked with other health and care partners and stakeholders to support vulnerable patients in an effective and joined up manner. For example, the practice sought the advice and support of their local learning disabilities team when seeking to improve services for this specific patient group.

The practice promoted their patient’s 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. The practice kept registers of vulnerable patients, and patients with caring responsibilities, and used these to manage care and promote support services. For example, carers were invited into the practice for flu vaccinations. Staff told us that they actively supported patients. For example, the practice had recently moved to a digital triage-based appointment system (this required patients to provide information about their medical needs before an appointment with an acute clinician could be booked. A GP or senior clinician reviewed these requests to prioritise care based on clinical need). We were told that patients who struggled in completing the necessary information were supported to complete the necessary online form by staff.

We reviewed the National GP Patient Survey data from 2025 as part of our assessment and saw 90% of patients said they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment, this was in line with the local and national averages of 91%. In addition, 75% of respondents to the survey were offered a choice of time or day when they last tried to make an appointment. This was well above the local average of 55% and the national average of 54%.

Reception staff and others 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.

The practice listened to and understood patient’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to patient’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Requests for acute appointments and home visits were subject to assessment via clinical triage, and this was supported by care navigation to ensure patients received appropriate and responsive care.

Staff we spoke to 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. In addition, staff that we spoke with were aware of processes for referral to immediate emergency support.

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

We heard how the practice had supported staff when they needed to make changes to how they worked, such as through workplace adjustments and flexible working. We saw that induction processes were in place to assist new staff including GP trainees, and the practice held regular staff appraisals where staff could raise work issues, including those linked to wellbeing. Staff were also able to raise wellbeing concerns directly or give feedback via staff suggestions. When required the practice referred staff for additional support and help via their occupational health provider.

Staff told us they felt that they were valued by leaders and line managers, and described the positive relationships they had with their line managers. Staff also told us how the practice had supported them to develop their careers.

Team and social events were planned by the practice, examples of which were quiz nights and meals.