Friargate 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

Feedback from people using the service and partners was mixed. Not everyone found it easy to get an appointment, especially face to face, or thought their concerns were listened to by the health professionals. However, feedback from the 2024 National GP Patient Survey was positive with regards to health care professionals treating people with care and concern.

The behaviours of the GP partners caused some tension and anxiety within the staff team. Staff were supported by a well-being champion within the practice and also had access to external support.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Feedback from people using the service was mixed about whether they were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. Some people felt the health professionals were dismissive when they discussed their concerns and were reluctant to refer them to specialist services. The service also told us there was a high rejection rate for mental health referrals within the locality. Following the inspection the provider told us they do not have access to specialist services for people with ADHD so are unable to make referrals.

The results of the national GP patient survey 2024 showed that 85% of respondents stated that health care professionals were good at treating them with care and concern. This was in line with the local and national averages.

Staff who chaperoned had completed chaperone training and were aware of their role in maintaining people’s dignity and safety.

During our onsite assessment we observed that receptionists were polite and respectful to people.

Feedback from people indicated they did not always feel that individual needs and preferences were understood. Comments included a reluctance to prescribe medicines or referral to specialist services, as well as not being able to request a face to face appointment. This was echoed by a representative from the care home, who told us the visiting GP did not take the time to speak with relatives and often closed down any requests made by staff.

However, the 2024 National GP Patient Survey showed that 90% of respondents stated that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment.

Staff had access to services to enable people to understand their treatment, care and support options. For example, translation services. The Derby Carers newsletters were available on the practice website and included information on a wide range of support available in the community. The practice had arranged for a local provider to deliver one to one pre-booked sessions for people identified as pre-diabetic, to provide lifestyle advice and support.

There were systems in place to support people’s individual circumstances. For example, extended appointment times for people with a learning disability or those whose first language was not English. Staff had completed training in equality and diversity and autism.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

Feedback from people using the service about accessing appointments was mixed. Some people reported it was easy to get an appointment, whilst others commented it was difficult to get a face to face appointment with a GP.

A care home had chosen to discontinue receiving care and treatment provided by the practice. Patient reviews were carried out remotely rather than face-to-face and included reviews of do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitate plans. This approach did not meet the needs of the people living in the care home and the care home transferred all of their residents to another GP practice.

The practice responded promptly to on-line information provided by people and were able to contact the majority of people within 2 working days.

A no blame culture was encouraged within the practice. However, staff described the culture as hierarchical and that tension within the practice caused had anxiety.. Staff used phrases such as, ‘Treading on eggshells’ and, ‘Have to be at the top of our game’ and ‘Staff are on high alert’. Several members of staff had witnessed a partner being verbally aggressive towards staff and this increased their anxiety.

A staff wellbeing session had been provided during a monthly practice meeting.

Following the inspection the service told us they had taken action to address staff concerns. The partners reflected on the issues raised and implemented changes, including sharing the initial feedback with staff; flattening the managerial structure and the introduction of heads of department meetings; enhancing team engagement through participation in learning afternoons, providing lunch and an opportunity for social interaction and issue resolution, leading to increased oversight into practice challenges; improving communication at management level through the introduction of a dedicated management email. The partners also organised a staff appreciation meal in January 2025 in recognition of the work staff undertook over the Christmas period. The service also shared action taken following the initial feedback with CQC.

Staff management policies and procedures were stored electronically and accessible to all staff. Relevant policies were summarised and provided to all staff in the Employee Handbook. Team meetings were held monthly to update staff and provide the opportunity for staff discussions. The practice had organised a talk for staff regarding mental health and well-being. There was a staff well-being information board and staff were supported by the nominated well-being champion within the practice. Staff also had access to an Employee Assistance Programme.