- GP practice
Whitley Road Medical Centre
Report from 14 February 2025 assessment
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment:15 to 17 April 2025. Whitley Road Medical Centre is a GP practice that delivers service to 6335 people under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that the demographics of the population are 58% white British, 18% Black, 15% Asian and roughly 9% Mixed Race or Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 1st decile (1 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.
SAFE: The service had a learning culture where people could raise concerns. These concerns would be listened to by managers. Incidents that had been raised would be investigated thoroughly. Outcomes from investigations would then be shared amongst all staff at regular staff meetings. There was a no blame culture which helped to ensure that people were protected and kept safe.
Staff understood and managed risks and were committed to improving safety and the staff had clear roles and responsibilities with a clear structure in place.
The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated.
There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff completed regular mandatory training; records were provided to show evidence of this.
People were involved in planning any changes to medicines.
EFFECTIVE: People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services.
When people found it difficult to access other services, the service supported individuals by facilitating appointments at the practice or by arranging transport to get to these services.
Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people and took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.
CARING: Staff were friendly and approachable to all individuals either on the phone or face to face. Staff ensured people felt at ease whilst at the practice and were helpful and suitably trained to handle different situations.
They talked to patients in a language that could be understood by the person receiving the information, avoiding the use of jargon. People were treated with kindness, compassion and empathy.
Staff protected their privacy and respected their dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment and the service supported individuals to get access to other services whenever needed.
The service supported staff wellbeing and offered flexible working patterns to help improve work life balance.
RESPONSIVE: People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand in different formats.
People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment.
The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.
The service had an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) and regular meetings were held. Suggestions were put forward by people and new ways of working were being trialled at the practice.
The practice supported people to get the right care and treatment from secondary care services closer to home.
WELL-LED: Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles.
Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities.
Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas.
There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.
The service went above and beyond to ensure that people received the right care and supported individuals to access the care that they needed.
People's experience of this service
People were positive about the quality of their care and treatment. Recent survey results, including from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test, showed people were very satisfied with services. There were 38 Individual responses from people and they told us that they felt they were treated “very good or fairly good by the healthcare professional that they saw at their last appointment”.
People told us that they had a high level of confidence and trust in the professional that they were receiving treatment from. The respondents also told us that they felt listened to and involved as much as they wanted to be about decisions being made about their care.
The PPG who represented the views of people using the service was active and were able to share views openly with the practice. Representatives from the PPG described how managers made positive changes because of feedback given to them.
People told us they knew the staff by name, there was a low turnover of staff and that some of the staff had been with the service for a long time. Staff told us that they knew the people who used the service well and most of them were known on a first-name basis.
People told us that they had been registered with the practice for many years and had no intention of changing. They spoke highly of the staff employed at the service and there were no negative comments received in feedback we gathered.