Whitley Road Medical 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 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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion they respected people’s 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 showed us that 94% of those who responded felt listened to and were treated with kindness. This compared to the national average of 86%.

We observed staff speaking to people with understanding and kindness. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. They were able to take people to a quiet area to allow people to share confidential matters with them without these matters being overheard by others.

The service had policies and procedures for staff to follow and regular training to keep staff abreast of best practice.

The service treated people as individuals and was exceptional in how they made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The service 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.

We received feedback directly from people who told us that the service listened to them, and they felt they were treated as individuals every time they contacted the service. They also went on to say the service could not do enough for them and they always felt supported by the service. 95% of patients who responded to the GP Patient Survey said that the healthcare professional treating them with care and concern was fairly good or very good compared to the national average of 85%.

The practice had a hearing loop to help with those hard of hearing. Information leaflets were available in large text or braille if required.

There was information on boards that supported people from different backgrounds and those with protected characteristics.

The practice staff worked together to treat people as individuals. Staff built relationships with people that allowed open conversations to take place. Individuals felt able to raise concerns about how taking different medications was having a negative impact on their overall well being. Staff would then raise concerns with a senior clinician and a plan to change medication to help improve well being would take place. People told us of some positive outcomes where they became more engaged with secondary care services and their own friends and family.

The practice helped to support individuals enduring financial hardship by allowing a local charity to make use of the facilities at practice. The charity held weekly drop ins and pre-booked appointments to offer support and advice.

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. The service worked well with local charities and were able to refer patients over once consent had been gained.

National GP Patient Survey results showed that 98% of those who responded felt they had been involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions being made, compared to the national average of 91%.

Staff ensured that people using the service had all options available to them so they could make informed decisions about the care and treatment they received. The feedback we received told us that the doctors employed at the service did not rush individuals and they had adequate time to ask additional questions whilst in consultation with the GP.

The feedback also told us that individuals felt they had been given enough information about different choices and what the risks might be and how they could affect individuals differently.

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 went above and beyond to help people and demonstrated how they ensured that people’s needs were met and took time to listen and understand concerns and worries. For example multi-disciplinary working with colleagues including secondary and community care colleagues to develop individual action plans with positive outcomes for patients and increase engagement with healthcare professionals.

The service took on feedback from people via the Patient Participation Group (PPG) and were able to actively make changes. The PPG highlighted an issue with the hearing loop in reception not working and this was repaired very quickly by the provider once they had been made aware of the malfunction.

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

We saw that there was available appointments on the day for individuals requiring urgent appointments. There was the option available to book routine appointments with the same clinician to allow for continuity of care.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled 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 flexible working opportunities available for staff to help with work home life balance.

We were told by staff that they had been employed for a long time by the provider and that staff turnover was low. People told us that they felt supported in work and that there was an open door policy.