Potterells Medical Centre

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

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.

Staff treated colleagues and those from other organisations with kindness and respect. When we carried out the site visits on assessment, we observed happy and motivated staff. Staff we spoke to were responsive and welcoming to the assessment team. We observed front line staff treat patients and their colleagues with kindness and respect.

This was consistent with feedback received from the Patient Participation Group (PPG) who highlighted the introduction of total triage, with reception staff recognised for managing patient queries in a warm and responsive manner. Feedback from the community about reception staff was reported as positive, despite the challenges of the role. There was one piece of feedback suggesting frontline staff be provided with customer relations training.

Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy. There was an equality, inclusion and diversity policy and the practice strived to treat people with kindness, compassion and dignity and we saw examples of this on assessment. For example, when a patient was unable to discuss their needs privately at reception, staff escorted them to a nearby enclosed area to maintain confidentiality and support a more sensitive conversation. Patients praised staff for their compassion and professionalism, and some patient feedback praised nurses for creating a safe space and environment for patients. This included an example of a staff member remaining with a patient until an ambulance arrived, despite being off duty, demonstrating kindness and a strong commitment to patient care. The nursing team and healthcare assistants were described as friendly, efficient and compassionate. Patients also noted improvements to facilities, including enhanced privacy in the phlebotomy service.

Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy; however, this was not always reflected in patient feedback as a concern was raised by patients regarding confidentiality at reception, where conversations including personal patient information could be overheard due to the open-plan layout and dual role of reception staff handling both face-to-face and telephone queries. This presented a potential risk to patient confidentiality and information governance. The practice told us they played music which muffled voices.

Feedback we received from the integrated care board showed no complaints had been received them in 2024/25, or in the past year between April and August 2025 and there had been only one PALS enquiry in 2024/25 relating to staff attitude, with none reported in 2025/26 to date. There had been no NHS reviews in the past 2 years.

National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. 82% of patients stated that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at treating them with care and concern which was in line with the national average of 86%. The patient satisfaction scores for patients who stated that during their last appointment they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was 92% which was also in line with the national average of 93%. This was reflected in wider patient feedback, which was largely positive regarding staff professionalism and care.

Patient feedback was highly positive, with one long-standing patient who described clinicians as attentive, knowledgeable, caring and supportive and highlighted consistent support through complex health needs, including serious illness and long-term conditions. This was consistent with other feedback provided by patients where they described themselves as lucky to be part of the practice. Feedback also received from the care home stated that GP practice staff consistently demonstrated respect for their residents' privacy, dignity and individual preferences.

Patients’ personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were understood and met. This included the student population.

The 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed that 85% of patients felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment and this was comparable to the national average of 92%.

Patients also provided positive feedback about being treated as individuals. For example, 1 patient reported that following a diagnosis from a recent scan, their GP made an immediate referral to their health and wellbeing coach who called them to discuss a referral to the local gym, demonstrating a personalised and responsive approach to care.

The practice’s social prescribers offered personalised care and supported patients who required additional non-clinical assistance. This included signposting patients to relevant services and supporting access to resources such as Blue Badge applications, transport arrangements and attendance at healthcare appointments, including hospital visits. Patient feedback was highly positive and ongoing support was noted following a patient’s diagnosis of a long-term condition, with praise for the care and coordination provided by the GP and social prescribing teams. The feedback emphasised the positive impact of the practice’s support during a challenging period, describing the team as compassionate, responsive and essential to their wellbeing.

Most of the feedback received by CQC highlighted that patients felt treated as individuals, with many praising the positive experiences throughout their personal health journeys. Patient communication needs were also met to enable them to be fully involved in their care. Patient feedback provided by patients prior to the assessment praised the provider for being efficient, reliable and caring. They also highlighted excellent service from GP's, nurses and reception staff expressing high satisfaction with overall care. A long-term patient also praised the practice for consistently excellent and thorough care.

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 website offered patients access to different local services and a variety of self-help links to access services such as, self-referrals to physiotherapy, counselling and links to a variety of wellbeing services.

Patients with a learning disability were offered longer, Saturday appointments.

Carers were invited for their annual health screening and the designated carers champion organised coffee mornings for the carers, the most recent, a couple of weeks prior to our assessment, was very well attended.

Feedback from the care home was largely positive, where they described the practice as responsive and proactive in supporting residents to remain at home. Care home staff praised the practice’s efforts to maintain continuity of care and address residents’ needs promptly. They told us their home visit requests were managed promptly and the practice provided appropriate support for routine and non-urgent visits.

Feedback we received from patients was highly positive, with patients happy with being able to order their medicines online and access their medical records and letters online. Some patients were happy to have the choice of a chaperone for their consultations.

The practice had a Patient Participation Group (PPG) of 15 members whose collective thoughts and ideas helped to improve the practice through collaboration with patients.

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. For example, we saw 1 patient received a call back within 2 hours of submitting their online form and they were offered a face to face appointment. They felt the clinician was responsive to their immediate needs and they were described as attentive and carried out a thorough examination before prescribing antibiotics, which were reported to be effective.

There was also a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. The practice had a duty team comprising the duty doctor who triaged the appointment requests. A patient reported prompt access to care following hospital discharge, with thorough, supportive consultation and effective response to immediate health needs. There was a home visit policy to triage visit requests, and they prioritised home visits for housebound, terminally ill patients and other eligible criteria.

Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams. The practice had a Primary Care Network (PCN) based specialist frailty nurse who undertook home visits for its most vulnerable and housebound patients.

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

Most of the staff felt fully supported and valued by leaders; however, some staff told us they did not feel the all leaders had sufficient knowledge or training for their role. As a result they sought support from elsewhere.

Staff told us they valued the opportunities provided for wellbeing and team building, including twice-yearly social events such as a summer barbecue and a Christmas party, which contributed positively to staff morale.

Staff described strong team cohesion, supported by regular social activities such as a summer barbecue, annual Christmas dinner and team events such as rounders, which helped build morale. Many staff were longstanding members of the team, including salaried GPs who trained at the practice and remained or returned and administrative staff employed for several years. Leaders promoted a positive and supportive culture with open communication, accessibility and strong working relationships.

Former GP registrars who had since joined the practice as salaried GPs told us they felt their suggestions were listened to and that the provider acted in response, particularly regarding staff wellbeing and rota arrangements.

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 regular breaks and rest areas. Staff reported being supported if they were struggling at work and we saw how the practice supported staff who were struggling or undergoing performance management.

During the monthly protected learning afternoon, the meeting began with an open forum where staff were able to share their concerns and ideas. Positive patient feedback was shared and when individual staff members were named, this was communicated to the whole team, which supported staff morale. The team then discussed recent changes within the practice and any other relevant updates. Following this, clinical and non‑clinical staff separated to undertake their respective learning sessions.

Information was disseminated through multiple channels, including clinical system notifications, a staff WhatsApp group, and a regular staff newsletter.