Old Bridge 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.
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.
 

This service scored 75 (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 and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.
Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy when attending the service. Staff spoke from experience to tell us the steps they would take to promote people’s dignity in the event of an emergency. There were policies and protocols when people needed a chaperone and staff received training for this.
Staff we spoke with understood Gillick competency (Gillick competency refers to the legal ability of a child under 16 to consent to medical treatment without parental consent, provided they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to appreciate the treatment's nature, risks, and alternatives) 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.
People described staff as compassionate, kind and attentive. Feedback from people included “Everyone has been compassionate, kind and helpful” and “They are absolutely wonderful, kind, caring and compassionate and nothing is too much trouble”
 

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 characteristics needs were understood and met. People’s communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care.
The GPPS data reflected;
• 91.6% of people stated that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at listening to them.
• 83.4% of people responded positively to the overall experience of their GP practice.
• 90.7% of people stated that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at treating them with care and concern
• 95% of people stated that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment.

The service carried out its own patient survey, monitored for themes and took actions depending on the nature of the concern.
Staff told us that when the service changed over to a digital triage service people needed additional support to access the service. Staff told us how they met people’s communication needs and gave patients choices about appointment times and locations.
 

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.
Staff told us how they tailored a care plan for a person who found it difficult to cope with changes at short notice. By anticipating this need and adjusting the approach accordingly, staff had helped reduce distress and maintain the person’s sense of independence and control.
The service had a social prescribing link worker who provided people with a non-medical approach to improve health and wellbeing by connecting them to local community groups and activities.
The service also offered a physiotherapy service, which provided a service for people who find it difficult to access this service elsewhere.
 

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.
There was a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. Staff knew how to support people who displayed signs of needing urgent medical attention. A standard operating procedure ensured that staff took a consistent approach.
We received mixed feedback from people relating to the communication they received from the service. One person commented ‘’communication is very strong’ while another commented ‘there is little or no follow up of the appointment’.
People also commented around the timeliness of responses from the service. Feedback was mixed and comments included “They communicated very quickly on the morning as a text message.”, “The doctor phoned me on the landline before 0900, and I was grateful to him for that.” and ‘’We spent 3 weeks and one very long day waiting to be told to go for a blood test’’.

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 protected lunch breaks, an outdoor space and staff social events.
The service had policies that protected staff from bullying and harassment. Surveys were undertaken to collect staffs’ views and staff told us that they worked as part of a supportive team in a positive working environment.
Staff could raise concerns and had opportunity to discuss their wellbeing through individual appraisals. Staff told us they had enough time to carry out the duties of their role and protected time to undertake their training and continued professional development.