Pennine Drive Practice

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 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.

Whilst we saw some feedback in the GP patient survey that was below local GP average scores and national average scores, we were assured that the practice was working to engage with the patient population and act on concerns to make improvements to services.

This service scored 70 (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. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We reviewed the results from the national GP patient survey carried out from January to March 2024. A total of 101 surveys were completed by patients out of 407 surveys distributed which was a completion rate of 25%. The patients’ responses for categories related to kindness, compassion and dignity, were all below the national and local area averages.

The survey showed 76% of patients who responded to the survey said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment. This was lower than the local average GP practice score of 84% and lower than the national average score of 87%. 71% of patients who responded to the survey 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 lower than the local average GP practice score of 83% and lower than the national average score of 85%. 50% of patients who responded to the survey described their overall experience of the practice as good. This was lower than the local average GP practice score of 72% and lower than the national average score of 74%. 89% of patients who responded to the survey had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to during their last general practice appointment. This was slightly lower than the local average GP practice score of 91% and the national average score of 92%. The practice told us that it was not aware of the national GP patient survey and consequently had not analysed the results of the survey.

We were told by staff members we spoke with the practice treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, with patients’ dignity and privacy being respected. Patient choice was respected, for example, patients were able to request a chaperone for an appointment and staff had received relevant chaperone training. Where a chaperone had assisted a patient, the practice documented this in the clinical records. Privacy curtains or screens were used in clinical rooms and staff would take patients either upstairs or to a free room if they wished to speak confidentially. Staff accommodated people from different cultures and backgrounds and worked to reduce barriers to care, for example by providing interpreters and making longer appointments or adjustments for people with mobility impairments. The practice had a policy for bereaved patients and offered empathy and support to relatives and carers of the deceased and sent letters of condolence.

Following our site visit, we provided feedback that the practice could consider decluttering some of its patient information notice boards to make it clearer for patients to find information, display posters regarding sepsis in clinical rooms and behind reception and administration areas and put up a chaperone poster in the treatment room.

In the national GP patient survey, 81% of patients who responded to the survey indicated that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. This was lower than the local average GP practice score of 90% and lower than the national average score of 91%. A total of 101 surveys were completed by patients which was a completion rate of 25%.

Staff members we spoke with told us that the practice treated people as individuals and ensured people’s care and treatment met their needs and preferences. The practice took account of patients’ cultures, backgrounds and equality characteristics and worked to reduce barriers to access to care and treatment. The practice had a number of staff members who spoke different languages to assist with patient interaction and used interpreters where required to meet the communication needs of the patient population. The practice offered leaflets in different languages or using pictures and provided these to patients as required, for example, leaflets about cervical screening.

We saw evidence the practice promoted people’s independence, patient choice and control over their care, treatment and wellbeing. The practice had a protocol for the identification of carers, a carers policy and held a carers register. The practice told us that a member of staff was a designated champion for carers and that carers were given priority appointments. The practice signposted carers to external organisations for additional support. The practice considered the needs of patients and made reasonable adjustments where required. The practice provided assistance for patients with visual impairments, for example using braille leaflets, printing leaflets in larger fonts and using diagrams to assist communication. The practice had a hearing loop, but this was not present at the reception area during our site visit. The practice told us that this would be re-installed in the reception area. The practice ensured that patients with mobility impairments were seen on the ground floor of the premises. Reception staff asked new patients if they required any adjustments to facilitate their needs and recorded this on the clinical records and an alert would appear when staff accessed their record. Where patients had additional needs, the practice considered whether it would be appropriate to offer an appointment towards the end of the day.

The practice listened to and understood people’s needs and wishes. The practice had a system to identify patients who required urgent care. Staff members we spoke with were aware of what action to take in the event of a medical emergency, how to raise an alarm and how to escalate concerns. The practice had a medical emergencies policy which staff could refer to on the shared drive. Staff members had received sepsis and basic life support training. We provided feedback after our site visit that the practice could display posters about sepsis in clinical rooms and behind reception and administration areas.

Staff members we spoke with told us they felt supported by management and they enjoyed their work. Several staff members told us they would like team meetings and appraisals. The practice told us that it had taken this on board and would consider this in the future. The practice encouraged education and training for staff members and gave examples of where staff had received training to take on additional responsibilities in their role. The practice manager had an open-door policy and staff told us that they felt confident in raising any concerns. The practice told us that it had been sensitive to the wellbeing needs of staff and had provided support, particularly during and post the Covid-19 pandemic, and during times of bereavement and mental health. The practice conducted appropriate health and safety risk assessments to ensure a safe working environment for staff and made reasonable adjustments where required. We saw evidence of staff feedback gathered, which was undated, and actions taken by the practice following this feedback. We saw examples of where action was taken to make reasonable adjustments for staff members, including changes in working hours. We noted that following feedback received, the practice had booked time slots in for protected time for staff training. We noted several positive comments about the support provided to staff members in the feedback gathered by the practice.