Rothwell and Desborough Healthcare Group

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. Staff protected patients' privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. However, we received mixed feedback from staff in relation to their wellbeing. Whilst some staff felt well supported, others advised they had unmanageable workloads and did not feel their concerns were always listened to or acted upon. The practice had an active patient participation group (PPG), which the practice routinely approached for feedback on the services they provided. We found the practice was providing a caring service overall. This key question has been rated as good.

This service scored 70 (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. People we received feedback from said they were listened to and treated with kindness and compassion. People described how they had been supported by staff at the practice. National GP Patient Survey data showed people felt listened to and treated with kindness. 83% of patients surveyed said they felt the healthcare professional they saw was good at treating them with care and concern which was below the national average of 86%. 84% of respondents felt the healthcare professional was good at listening to them which was below the national average of 86%. During the site visit, we observed staff being helpful and polite to patients. A member of the PPG we spoke with described most of the staff as being friendly and caring.

Arrangements were in place to promote patient’s privacy. Staff we spoke with understood Gillick competency (a legal principle used to determine if a child under 16 has the maturity, intelligence, and understanding to consent to medical treatment or advice without parental knowledge or agreement). 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. Staff ensured reasonable adjustments were recorded and observed for people with protected characteristics or specific wishes. Privacy was encouraged at the reception desk and trained chaperones were also available if needed.

The practice treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. People were treated with respect and dignity and supported to manage their health in a way that made sense to them. Feedback received from people suggested that staff took account of their individual circumstances during consultations. Staff explained how they assessed, understood and recorded people’s needs and preferences to make sure their care and treatment was individualised and tailored to their circumstances. Results of the National GP Patient Survey 2025, found 92% of patients surveyed felt their healthcare needs were met at their last appointment, this was above the national average of 90%.

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.

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 patients and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services. Information was available in the waiting areas and on the practice website which advised people how to access a range of support groups and organisations.

The practice listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to peoples’ needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Staff and leaders told us they provided translation services, including British Sign Language to accommodate people who required this during their appointments.

There was a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. We saw there was a doctor on call available each day supported by members of the administration team to ensure appropriate and timely triage of patient queries and appointment requests.

Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams. People we spoke with felt their needs had been met by the practice. We reviewed a random sample of staff training records and saw all staff had appropriate training in emergency procedures such as fire safety and basic life support. Staff understood the emergency procedures and their role in them. The practice held regular fire drills.

Staff provided mixed feedback on their wellbeing at work. Whilst some staff felt well supported and were content at work, others felt their workloads were unmanageable. Some staff felt that when they raised concerns, leaders did not always take action. Staff described divisions between different working teams that had led to conflict and tensions within the staff team as a whole. Leaders were aware of the conflicting experiences of staff and openly discussed efforts made to improve the working environment for all. This included the use of external mediation and the promotion of staff team building activities. They advised that these initiatives had failed to make improvements with many staff unwilling to engage. They also confirmed that they had faced difficulties with the recruitment and retention of reception staff which had impacted other staff teams. During our assessment, the leadership team took a proactive approach to feedback provided by the assessment team and established a comprehensive action plan to address concerns raised by staff. This included the development and implementation of an anonymous staff survey. We saw there were adequate staff rest facilities at both sites. Some staff reported they had been well supported following illness or diagnosis, with effective adjustments implemented.