The Village 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 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. The practice kept registers of carers and supported referrals to external services.

Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy. National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. 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.

Friends and Family data was positive about the service with 93% of respondents saying they would recommend the practice compared to the national average of 92%.

The practice demonstrated use of social prescribing to support patients’ wider health and wellbeing needs. Patients were referred to local services, including Trafford Age UK, to provide additional 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 understood and met. Patient communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care.

Arrangements were in place to support communication, including the use of interpreters for patients whose first language was not English. Systems supported inclusive access, including non-digital routes for contacting the service and processes to assist patients who may be unable to engage with online systems.

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

Staff helped patients and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services.

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.

A triage system was in place, with the duty doctor overseeing requests and prioritising patients based on clinical need. Staff demonstrated awareness of red flag symptoms and appropriate escalation pathways, including emergency services where required. Systems to manage demand and capacity were in place, and recent administrative workflow improvements had increased clinical capacity, enabling more timely access to care.

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

Staff described a positive working culture, with an open-door policy and team-building activities in place. Adjustments had been made to the working environment in response to staff feedback, including improvements to equipment and facilities.

Staff were supported to develop new skills, with training provided to enable non-clinical staff to take on additional responsibilities.