Atrium Health 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 has changed to requires improvement.

This service scored 60 (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 did not always treat people withkindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations withkindness and respect.

National GP Patient Survey data published following our assessment showed mixed results relating to people's experience of care. In 2026, 77% of respondents said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern, compared with 88% locally and 86% nationally. In addition, 80% of respondents said the healthcare professional was good at listening to them, compared with 89% locally and 87% nationally. The percentage of respondents who said a healthcare professional considered their mental wellbeing was 63%, compared with 77% locally and 75% nationally. These results represented a decrease from the service's 2025 GP Patient Survey results, where 89.7% of respondents had reported a positive experience. However, other areas of the 2026 survey were more positive. Of those who responded, 87% found the reception and administrative team helpful, compared with 85% nationally, and 89% felt their needs were met during their last appointment.

The service reviewed feedback received through the NHS Friends and Family Test. Whilst the service had identified areas where people's experiences could be improved and had developed an action plan, it was unable to demonstrate that the planned actions had been implemented in response to the feedback received at the time of our assessment. Leaders told us they planned to strengthen oversight by reviewing feedback scores monthly, monitoring late-running clinics and tracking any reductions in satisfaction scores to help identify trends and areas requiring improvement, but these arrangements were not yet in place at the time of our assessment.

During our onsite visit, we observed reception staff respecting people's privacy and speaking to people in a professional and compassionate manner.

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 personal, cultural, social, religious and equality-related needs were understood and met. Communication needs were considered to support people to be fully involved in decisions about their care and treatment.

Leaders told us a new registration form asked people to provide information about their personal, cultural, social and religious needs, as well as any communication requirements. This information was electronically coded within clinical records to help ensure these needs could be recognised and responded to appropriately.

As the service was accredited as veteran-friendly, it asked people about their military status as part of the registration process. This helped staff identify veterans and better understand their individual needs, enabling appropriate support, signposting and referral to relevant services where required.

All staff had completed equality and diversity training and understood when people may require additional support or reasonable adjustments to access care and treatment.

The service did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

National GP Patient Survey data published following our assessment showed that people did not always have the opportunity to see or speak with their preferred healthcare professional when they wanted to. In 2026, only 31% of respondents reported being able to do so, which was below the local average of 53% and the national average of 42%.

Survey results also showed a decline in some aspects of people's experience of continuity and involvement in their care. In 2026, 80%% of respondents said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them, compared with 85.1% in 2025. The percentage of respondents who said they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment had also decreased from 90.9% in 2025 to 89% in 2026.

Leaders told us they had experienced difficulties recruiting GPs, which they felt had affected continuity of care and people's ability to see their preferred healthcare professional. To help manage this, the service sought to provide continuity through the use of 2 regular locum GPs whilst recruitment was ongoing. Leaders also told us they had recently recruited additional GPs. Whilst they anticipated this would improve access to appointments and continuity of care, the impact of these new members of staff was not yet evident at the time of our assessment.

The service told us it was monitoring these concerns and planned to review survey and feedback scores monthly, monitor the impact of late-running clinics on people’s experience, and track changes in satisfaction scores to identify any further deterioration or areas requiring improvement.

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.

The service had systems to help ensure people with immediate needs could access care and treatment. Reception staff had received training and were provided with guidance and resources to support the triage process. Following the introduction of a full triage model in April 2024, people’s requests submitted online or through the telephone system were reviewed by trained care navigators and allocated to the most appropriate clinician or service. Staff used guidance documents and had access to daily support from GPs to promote consistency in decision-making. Although staff told us that occasional errors occurred when requests were allocated, these were reviewed, and feedback was provided to support learning and improvement.

Leaders told us people with urgent needs would usually be assessed on the same day they contacted the service. The service used a range of appointment types to respond to demand, including appointments available on the same day and within 3 days. These appointments were held back and released when required to help ensure capacity was available for people with more urgent needs. Where appropriate, people were signposted to other suitable services or offered a future appointment.

The service accepted referrals from NHS 111 and had dedicated appointments available each day for these referrals. These referrals were reviewed by the duty clinician to determine whether a face-to-face or telephone consultation was required.

The service worked with other organisations to support people whose needs required a coordinated response. Care homes primarily accessed urgent support through the primary care network’s (PCN) frailty team, which managed urgent care needs for the service’s population. PCN paramedics also provided additional support, including home visits where required. The service also worked collaboratively with other community services, including NHS 111, district nursing teams, community pharmacies and pathology services, to support people's care and treatment needs.

The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

A staff survey completed in February 2026 identified areas where satisfaction levels were below the service's target. Whilst leaders maintained an action plan that recorded survey results, target scores, required actions and completion dates, at the time of our assessment, the identified actions remained in progress, and the service could not yet demonstrate that improvements had been achieved.

During our onsite visit, staff told us that some aspects of their work were duplicative. For example, staff explained information relating to test results, referrals and other administrative tasks sometimes had to be entered into both the service's systems and other additional systems operated by a third-party organisation who supported the service with governance arrangements. This had resulted in duplication of administrative tasks and was felt to have increased workload for staff. Staff told us these concerns had been raised through the service's most recent staff survey. Whilst leaders were aware of the issue and were in the process of considering solutions, staff did not know of any immediate changes that had been implemented at the time of our assessment.

However, health and safety risk assessments, including Display Screen Equipment (DSE) assessments, were carried out in line with the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992. The service also had a reasonable adjustment agreement available for use where required to support individual staff needs. These arrangements helped support staff wellbeing and enable staff to work effectively within their roles.

The service had introduced measures to support workforce wellbeing, including a dedicated wellbeing board that provided information, resources and signposting to sources of support available to staff. Staff were supported to develop within their roles, and we saw evidence of career progression, including a nurse who had been supported by the service to qualify as a nurse prescriber.