Church Lane 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 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.

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.

Church Lane Surgery always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

The practice performed better than the national average in the results of both the 2025 and 2026 National GP Patient Surveys. These results showed people felt they were listened to and that they were treated with kindness.

For example in the 2026 survey, 95% of respondents stated that they felt the healthcare professional at their last appointment was good at treating them with care and concern, (compared to a national average of 86%) and 80% of respondents felt that the healthcare professional they saw was good at considering their mental wellbeing, (compared to a national average of 75%).

Most respondents (94% of those surveyed) also stated that the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to at their last appointment was good at listening to them, (compared to a national average of 87%). In addition, 93% of respondents stated that they found the reception and administrative team at the practice helpful, (compared to a national average of 85%).

‘Friends and Family Test’ feedback from patients over the last 12 months also reflected a high level of satisfaction with the practice with most respondents rating the practice as ‘good’ or ‘very good’.

This positivity was mirrored in feedback we received from patients during our assessment who, for example, described staff members as “kind and helpful,” “compassionate, caring, and completely professional,” and “excellent, caring and supportive.”

During our visit we observed that arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy and that rooms used for intimate examinations had appropriate curtains or other measures in place to ensure privacy.

All staff had completed basic chaperone training, and those acting as chaperones had received additional role-specific training. Information about the availability of chaperones was clearly displayed for patients, with notices visible in both the reception area and clinical treatment rooms.

Social prescribers, working through the Primary Care Network collaborated with the provider to support patients through holistic assessments. They offered a range of services and could explore support for patients’ mental wellbeing; help patients be healthier, more active, and socially connected; and assist patients to live well and more independently. Specific examples of how social providers had helped patients were highlighted during our assessment and in both of the examples provided, positive outcomes were noted for the patients concerned.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

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.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.