Gnosall 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 80 (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.

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.

The service held a GP Veteran Friendly Accreditation and maintained a patient register to support veterans.

Staff that chaperoned were aware of their responsibilities in maintaining a person’s dignity and safety during an intimate examination.

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.

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.

Patients reported positively on the care and treatment they received by staff. The National GP Survey 2025 found for example:

• The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who stated that they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment was 95% compared to the National result of 91%.
• The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who stated that during their last appointment they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was 94.5% compared to the National result of 92.5%.
• The percentage of respondents to the GP Patient Survey who stated that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very goodor fairly goodat listening to them was 90% compared to National result of 87%.
• 90% of people found the reception and administrative team at this GP practice helpful, compared to the National result of 83%.

There was a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams.

The process followed for the triaging of patients was a triage system which enabled clinical staff to prioritise based on patients presenting symptoms. The clinical triage included the duty doctor and a paramedic who sat with and supported the reception team. During our visit on site the service reported they were able to see patients requiring a face-to-face assessment on the same day and those requiring more routine appointments within a 14-day period or earlier.

The service always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us 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, such as regular breaks and rest areas. Staff reported being supported if they were struggling at work. We saw team building days were established within the practice.

Staff told us leaders valued them. Leaders had taken steps to recognise and meet the wellbeing needs of staff, which included the necessary resources and facilities for safe working, such as regular breaks and rest areas. Staff reported being supported if they were struggling at work. We saw team building type days were established within the practice as well as a notice board which highlighted individual staff singled out for praise by patients.

The practice had developed learning and support for staff wellbeing and resilience, including supportive information on local and national resources. The service had considered the recognition of stress and considered their workforce including any potential risk of burnout in their GP staff group.

The staff we spoke with felt valued by the service. In summary they reported the practice as patient‑focused, with strong teamwork, approachable colleagues and they had a developed professional quality improvement focus. Staff felt listened to and involved in improvements and enjoyed working for this practice. Training, communication, and work–life balance were prioritised, creating a positive, proactive, and high‑quality working environment.