Mayfield 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

We looked for evidence that 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.

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

Arrangements were in place to promote peoples’ privacy. There was a separate room available for people requiring a private conversation away from the reception area. This room could also be used for people who preferred to wait in a quiet area.

Staff that chaperoned people were aware of their responsibilities, and we observed notices around the service advising chaperones were available and how to request one. All staff that were acting as chaperones had completed the relevant training.

National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. For example, 89% of respondents stated that during their last appointment they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to. This was just below the national average of 93%.

Staff we spoke with understood Gillick competency and there was a process to ensure young adults had control over their own privacy and the amount of parental involvement in managing their care and support.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s communication needs were identified at registration and during annual reviews. Appropriate adjustments were made and alerts added to their notes, so staff were aware. For example, if they needed a longer appointment.

Peoples’ personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were understood and met. People’s communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care. During the onsite inspection, we identified the hearing loop in reception was broken. Staff told us this was in the process of being repaired and they had not been made aware of this affecting any people that used the service.

Feedback from local care homes consistently described staff as responsive, compassionate and knowledgeable in their approach to supporting people as individuals.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service had identified 1,704 carers and had a nominated carers champion who supported this group of people. There was a carers board in reception with leaflets and posters offering various avenues of support and the service held monthly carers meetings.

Staff supported people and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services. The service had access to a social prescriber who signposted people to access healthy lifestyle programmes and various organisations for support with financial and housing needs.

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.

People could book appointments by telephoning the service, attending in person or through an online form. There was also a touchscreen tablet computer in reception that people could access the online forms to book an appointment or to request repeat medication.

There was a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. People who required a same day appointment and assessment were booked into the “acute team”, led by clinicians, which had capacity for on the day appointments and home visits. People were able to have appointments with named GPs however they were advised that the waiting time maybe longer.

Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams.

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

Staff told us they were valued by leaders. 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. The service supported staff in professional development and career progression. Staff shared several examples of how the service supported flexible working arrangements to accommodate personal and family needs, including phased return to work following periods of absence to help individuals with their recovery.

We saw team building days were established within the service and there was an open-door policy to improve communication and collaboration between leaders and staff.

The service also supported their staff by organising social events, such as a summer party, a Christmas gathering and celebrating individual staff “big birthdays” and other special dates.