Glenroyd Medical

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 practice involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment.

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 practice 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 people’s privacy. National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. Staff had an understanding of 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.

Feedback from people who used the service was positive for being treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. 91% of those who responded to the National GP patient survey said the healthcare professional was good at treating them with care and concern during their appointment. This was slightly above the local and national average. We observed that people’s privacy and dignity was respected by reception staff. 87% of patients responding to the National GP Patient Survey felt that during their last appointments the healthcare professional was good at listening to them, which was in line with the local and national average.

The practice 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 personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were understood and met. Communication needs were met to enable people to be fully involved in their care. Interpretation services were available if required, and people had access to longer appointments where necessary.

The practice promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Staff helped people and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services. The service had identified that over 6% of their patient population were carers. They were in the process of enhancing the support they currently gave carers, with one staff member having a particular interest in being involved in this work. There was a young carers service in the area that they could direct people to. 87% of those who responded to the National GP Patient Survey said that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. This was slightly below the local and national average.

The practice 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 the triage of appointments that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. This was a secure online consultation system that allowed people to communicate with their practice. A clinical team carried out the triage and could book people in for appointments or contact them for further information if necessary. There was a large clinical team, so people were directed to the most appropriate clinician for their needs.

During the month prior to our assessment the practice had received the results of an independent staff survey. The business manager told us they were in the process of analysing the results and deciding what action to take. They said that as only 14 out of approximately 50 staff members responded it was not an accurate reflection of how staff felt, and they hoped to carry out their own anonymous survey where they could encourage staff to respond.

Responses to the survey were mixed. To the question, ‘During the last 12 months have you felt unwell as a result of work related stress?’ 9 of the 14 answered that they had. To the question ‘In the last 3 months have you ever come to work despite not feeling well enough to perform your duties?’ 12 of the 14 answered that they had. 8 staff said they agreed or strongly agreed that they would recommend the service as a good place to work (2 said ‘neither’, 3 disagreed and 1 strongly disagreed). When asked of the extent to which the service valued their work, 6 staff said they were satisfied or very satisfied (7 said ‘neither’ and 1 said they were not satisfied).

Staff feedback we received was mostly positive. Staff told us the service paid for them to be members of a healthcare scheme. Staff were encouraged to attend training courses, but we heard this could be difficult due to clinics being arranged so far in advance and training courses could be at short notice.