Brigstock Medical Centre Also known as Brigstock and South Norwood Partnership

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. One patient told us “…great service. Seen on time by practice nurse who was very professional and helpful.” Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy. National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. For example, 84% of patients said that the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their appointment similar to the local average of 89% and national average of 87%. Also, 85%said that the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last general practice appointment, compared to the local average of 87% and the national average of 85%. 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.

Patients’ personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were generally understood and met. The practice patient population was very diverse. They had particularly high numbers of patients whose first language was Spanish and Gujarati. They told us that they routinely sent standard text messages in these languages to reduce the barriers to accessing the service.

Appropriate adjustments were made to the service based on patients with protected characteristics. For example, patients with learning disabilities were invited for an annual review and asked to complete a questionnaire to ensure that the practice were continually meeting their needs.

Patient communication needs were also met by staff using google translate and language line if they needed to communicate with staff face to face. Clinicians were advised if there was a language barrier. Staff told us that patients often brought family members or friends to appointments to help the communicate.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Data from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 72% of patients were offered a choice of time or day when they last tried to make a general practice appointment. This was above the national (53%) and local (63%) averages

Staff helped patients and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services. The practice social prescriber worked closely with patients in this area.

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.

There was a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. All patients were offered an appointment on the day they requested. The practice said this worked very well and meant that people did not have to wait long to see a clinician. One patient said “I called the surgery to see the doctor because my blood pressure was very high…. They were fast to book me to see the doctor”.

Staff told us that if a patient with mental health needs turned up without an appointment they were never turned away and seen on the same day (reception staff would ask them to wait until a clinician (nurse or GP could see them). Some patient feedback around this indicated that patients felt there was delays in the provision of their on-going treatment needs.

For continuity of care patients could request and see the same clinician. Longer appointments were available if the patient or GP felt this was needed to discuss treatment.

The service had processes in place to promote the wellbeing of their staff and support and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

General feedback from staff was that 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. They had regular meetings where staff could raise concerns. Staff generally reported being supported if they were struggling at work.