Parkwood 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 service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. The service did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Feedback from people using the service was largely negative and highlighted concerns about dismissive attitudes, poor communication and a lack of empathy, particularly at reception. Many people reported feeling distressed, not listened to, and unsupported when accessing care.

People’s privacy and dignity were not always respected. The reception layout did not allow for confidential conversations and people described having to share sensitive information in public areas. There were also reports of patient information being discussed or left visible inappropriately.

Vulnerable groups, including people with mental health needs, disabilities and older adults, experienced barriers to accessing care and felt their needs were not considered. While some people described positive, compassionate care from individual staff, this was not consistent. National patient survey results reflected declining satisfaction. Overall, systemic pressures and leadership issues negatively impacted the caring culture of the service.

As a result, the service has been rated requires improvement for providing caring services.

This service scored 40 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Prior to the assessment, we received feedback from 78 people, of which only 2, as well as feedback from 3 care homes, were positive. Positive feedback praised helpful and polite staff.

Whilst most of the negative feedback related to concerns about access and care, at least 13 of these concerns were about staff attitude to patients. Patients generally felt that the overall quality of service at the surgery had deteriorated, with some reporting being spoken to in a condescending manner.

When patients raised complaints about staff attitude and lack of empathy, patients described the reaction to this from staff as rude and dismissive, whilst some described them as obstructive and refusing to allow bookings. Patients also highlighted a lack of effective communication and lack of compassion when patients were facing difficulties.

Patients told us their request for a longer appointment to discuss blood and scan results was refused by reception staff. On attending their appointment, several patients told us they felt scolded by some GPs for not booking a longer appointment, which led the GPs to be rude and inattentive and annoyed that multiple items had been brought to the appointment, despite patients explaining it had taken weeks to get the appointment.

Arrangements were not in place to promote patients’ privacy. Despite the practice having a data protection policy and privacy notice, we received at least 7 complaints from patients regarding lack of privacy at the front desk. Patients told us they were required to discuss personal medical issues and provide sensitive information in a loud voice through thick plastic screens at reception, which compromised their privacy, as other patients in the waiting room could overhear. A few patients also raised concerns that they observed staff members discussing confidential patient information outside the practice, breaching confidentiality guidelines. Additional concerns were raised by patients that they observed sensitive and personal patient information displayed on the reception desk.

People were not always treated with kindness, dignity and respect. One patient told us they were unable to discuss a sensitive health issue privately because staff refused their request to use a side room. The patient reported feeling distressed by this interaction and said they left the area in tears. Another patient described staff as hostile towards patients. They told us that despite arriving early for a confirmed appointment, they were told on arrival that the appointment was not on the system yet repeatedly informed they would be seen next. The patient waited over an hour without being seen and had to leave.

National GP Patient Survey data reflected people were not always treated with kindness. For example, the 2024 National GP patient survey results showed 65% of respondents to the GP patient survey responded positively to the overall experience of their GP practice and this was lower than the expected average of 74% and trending towards a negative variation.

At our further assessment activity in September 2025, the 2025 National GP patient survey results were available and showed a decline in patient satisfaction, with 45% describing their overall experience of this GP practice as good, lower than expected average of 75%. The 2025 results also showed that 57% of respondents found the reception and administrative team at this GP practice helpful, which was lower than the local average of 82% and national average of 83%.

The 2024 National GP patient survey results showed 84% percentage of respondents to the GP Patient Survey stated that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at treating them with care and concern and this was comparable to the expected average of 85%. However, this number had declined to 71% with the 2025 National GP patient survey results which was also lower than the local average of 85% and national average of 86%.

Unverified online patient feedback gave the practice a 2.8 star rating out of 5 from 180 reviews. The themes raised the past 12 months were consistent with inspection findings in relation to kindness to patients. Positive feedback received by CQC praised helpful and polite staff.

On assessment, we found the practice was unable to meet people’s individual needs as the service provided had become unreliable. There was a significant shortage of staff with a high staff turnover. We found the frontline team were dealing with high levels of frustration from patients who felt the service was not supporting them and was struggling to meet their individual needs and preferences. For example, one patient diagnosed with a mental health condition described the consistently poor experience they had received at the practice where their needs were not taken account, especially when in crisis, leaving them distressed and unable to access the medication they required. This was due to poor access, as well as poor communication between clinicians and poor treatment. This resulted in patients becoming upset at the reception desk or having to bring family members to support them at the practice.

Patient feedback highlighted that people were transferring to other GP practices as the practice did not have the capacity to support them and patients were struggling to access care and treatment at this practice.

We were also not assured the practice understood and met the protected characteristics of individual patients. There were gaps in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights training with only 2 clinical staff having completed this training, compared to 15 non-clinical staff.

Additionally, there was no equality and diversity, or accessibility policy and communication needs were not always met to enable patients to be fully involved in their care. On assessment, we spoke to patients who were partially sighted who told us there were no provisions made for their needs when they arrived at the practice, so they were always worried about missing their appointment time as they could not see the noticeboard. On assessment we also observed pregnant patients waiting up to an hour for their appointments.

The 2024 National GP Patient Survey showed that 93% of patients felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment and this was higher than the expected average of 91%. At our September 2025 assessment activity, the 2025 National GP patient survey results were available and showed a decline in patient satisfaction to 81%, whilst local and national averages was 91%.

The practice tried to maximise patients independence, choice and control; for example, by working closely with the community pharmacy teams to offer a new Pharmacy First service to enable the management of 7 conditions across various age ranges. However, the service provided at the practice did not consistently ensure that people were able to exercise independence, choice or control over their care and treatment. Evidence demonstrated that significant barriers to access limited people’s ability to make informed decisions and engage meaningfully in their care. Patients repeatedly reported that they were unable to secure appointments when required, including in situations where follow up had been recommended by a clinician or secondary care.

This resulted in people having little or no choice about when they were seen or by whom and restricted their ability to participate fully in decisions about their health. For example, patients told us they were restricted to presenting with only 1 problem at a time, which negatively impacted them. One person described submitting an online repeat prescription request and 5 days later, discovered at their pharmacy, that it had not been processed due to a significant backlog at the practice. As a result, they spent half of their day trying to obtain their medicine.

Some patients with mental health conditions told us they did not feel they had sufficient choice or control over their treatment. They described limited involvement in decision‑making and said they were not always offered appropriate options to manage their condition. People with diabetes who attended a diabetes seminar told us they were informed they were too old for the treatment being offered. Others who requested a referral said the provider they wished to access was not approved by the local clinical commissioning arrangements, which restricted their ability to exercise choice over their care.

We also heard from a patient recovering from cardiac surgery who reported they were not given a choice over their post-operative care. Although they were assessed by 2 clinicians who told them they would escalate any concerns if abnormalities were identified, the patient told us they did not feel they were given the option of a GP consultation when they felt this was clinically necessary. As a result, they felt they were not able to participate fully in decisions about their post-operative care.

Patient satisfaction was declining at the time of assessment. The findings of the 2024 GP Patient Survey showed 93% of the people who responded to the survey said during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment and this was comparable to the expected average of 91%. At the September 2025 assessment activity, the 2025 National GP patient survey results were available and showed a decline in patient satisfaction to 83%, whilst local and national averages remained at 91%.

The practice had a home visit procedure in place but it did not always respond effectively to people’s immediate needs. Although some visits were completed, feedback from care home staff told us that urgent requests were added to a general callback list and were not always guaranteed to be returned the same day. This meant they often had to chase repeatedly, creating delays in assessment for residents whose conditions could deteriorate quickly. The system lacked clear prioritisation and did not reliably ensure timely escalation for urgent clinical needs. There was a home visit procedure in place but it did not always respond effectively to people’s immediate needs. Although some visits were completed, care home staff told us that urgent requests were added to a general callback list.

People’s feedback reflected these concerns. One elderly patient told us their request for a home visit for an unwell relative was declined and the patient was made to visit the practice instead after a home visit was denied. Therefore, their systems did not always enable the practice to listen to or understand people’s immediate needs, views and wishes in a way that minimised any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams; however, the appointment triage system in place did not ensure that people with immediate needs had access to services.

We found the medical care for children under the age of 5 years had been compromised. We received concerns that on several occasions, young children requiring urgent assessment and care were turned away from the practice by the lead GP because they were presented late in the day and staff expressed their disappointment with this. On the day of assessment, we observed one child under 5 years old was turned away from the practice when they requested a morning appointment. We discussed our concerns with the practice and the GP partners told us they would ensure young children would not be turned away from the practice and would ensure they were prioritised with the GP partner.

Additionally, the elderly patients or those with complex health needs were frequently unable to secure timely appointments due to a failing system, so we identified a number of elderly patients without proper medical care, or in several cases patients experienced extended delays, which placed their health at further risk.

At the assessment in April 2025, we found a backlog in the actioning of patient discharge summaries from hospital due to a lack of resources which had been highlighted to the leadership on several occasions. This was consistent with patient feedback to CQC, who reported they often had to chase the practice for reviews that should have been organised proactively. For example, the emergency department asked the GP to follow up a patient after hospital discharge, but no contact was made for two weeks. When the patient contacted the practice, they were informed that no follow up had been arranged.

Another patient reported feeling increasingly unwell and, due to the lack of support from the practice and with their immediate health concerns overlooked, sought care at the emergency department. This resulted in an unnecessary use of urgent care services, as the patient was later advised their ongoing treatment should have been managed by the GP. They submitted a formal complaint describing poor handling of their case and the receptionist’s lack of compassion. The practice’s response did not acknowledge their distress and simply repeated generic advice to use the emergency services.

The 2024 GP patient survey data showed that 91% of patients felt their needs were met when compared to the local and national averages of 90%. At the time of re-assessment in September 2025, the 2025 National GP patient survey results were available and showed a decline in patient satisfaction to 80%, whilst local and national averages remained at 90%.

At our assessment in April 2025, we found the provider did not have effective systems in place to support or promote staff wellbeing. Whilst some staff felt supported, the majority of staff we spoke to told us they did not feel supported in their roles or enabled to deliver person centred care. These findings were consistent with the significant number of concerns we received before the assessment regarding high turnover among clinical and non-clinical staff, excessive workloads and a lack of accessible leadership support affecting staff wellbeing.

As part of the April 2025 assessment, we sought staff feedback and spoke to 10 staff. We found that concerns relating to workload, wellbeing and clinical safety had been repeatedly raised but leaders had not taken sufficient or timely action to address them. Staff reported that issues were often dismissed or not followed up, which contributed to low morale and ongoing recruitment and retention challenges. The absence of effective leadership responses meant risks to staff wellbeing and patient safety were not consistently identified, escalated or mitigated.

Some staff reported not being supported if they were struggling at work, including when experiencing health issues. A staff member reported experiencing significant anxiety related to issues within the practice and required medical support as a result. Although a few staff told us they felt the practice was a lovely place to work and they felt supported, especially within their respective teams, the majority of staff felt unsupported and frontline teams were dealing with a high level of frustration from patients and were struggling. There was low morale amongst staff and poor communication.

Staff were expected to undertake jobs they were not trained for and we saw evidence of this on assessment. Some staff told us they had a good relationship with the leadership and were not fearful of approaching them to raise concerns. However, this view was not widely shared as we saw that most staff were not enabled to speak up if they had any concerns. There were no practice meetings being held where staff could raise their concerns. Several patients reported witnessing reception staff bearing the brunt of patient frustration. They felt this was a serious management issue where front-line staff were being significantly affected.

Evidence gathered during the assessment, alongside staff and patient feedback, were consistent with those of external staff commissioned to support workforce health and wellbeing who contacted CQC to raise concerns about the deteriorating working environment. They reported a high volume of staff resignations, with over 13 departures in the past year, including partners, doctors, nurses, management and administrative staff. Remaining staff were described as exhausted and operating at red-flag levels, particularly during morning sessions, which were noted to be the busiest.

Concerns were also raised about poor internal communication, with repeated reports that emails to the practice manager went unanswered unless external parties were copied in. Staff wellbeing initiatives such as proposed 1 to 1 wellbeing support sessions and monthly lunches were delayed, deprioritised or not communicated to staff, despite being previously agreed. Staff also reported operational pressure, repeated management changes and reductions in communication were directly contributing to staff distress.

At the April 2025 assessment, we found the breakdown of the practice partnership played a significant role in the deterioration of the practice and staff were often forced to take sides to support either side of the partnership and some felt their job security was threatened as a result. Ten staff had left the practice in the past 12 months and remaining staff were told to work more instead of recruiting more staff. We observed staff were patient focused and did their best to help each other given the lack of leadership support and resources; however, this was unsustainable. Staff who were still working at the practice were committed to staying to see through improvement to where it was historically a good practice.

During our further assessment activity in September 2025, the practice had addressed the issues raised and acted to improve the overall working environment. They told us they recognised that staff wellbeing was essential to delivering safe, effective and compassionate care and had implemented several measures to support their health, resilience and morale. For example, active recruitment was taking place with the addition of new clinical and non-clinical staff, previous staff were due to return to the practice and some staff had increased their hours.

To provide staff with accessible support, a third party employment and wellbeing advisory service was available to offer all staff confidential advice, guidance and a safe and independent route for raising concerns and seeking support.

Leaders encouraged an open door culture, inviting staff to approach the GP partners and new practice manager with any personal or work related issues, including requests for support or reasonable adjustments. They told us they aimed to respond promptly and sensitively to staff needs. They also told us staff had access to an in-house mental health worker who was available to provide support to staff when needed, offering timely and accessible assistance.

We saw from meeting minutes that staff were reminded of their freedom to speak up and whistleblowing policy and training was put in place. The practice was also planning social events for the staff and lunch was provided for some staff meetings. As improvement to staff wellbeing had recently been implemented, these actions will require further monitoring to ensure they are embedded and effective.