Church Lane 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 practice involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. Staff demonstrated how they protected patient privacy and dignity and treated patients as individuals and supported their preferences. This included cultural, communication and accessibility requirements. Outcomes from the most recent National GP Patient Survey were positive and demonstrated patients felt listened to, supported, and involved in decisions about their care. The practice supported staff wellbeing.

At our previous inspection, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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 practice demonstrated a commitment to treating patients with kindness, empathy and compassion, while also respecting privacy and dignity. Staff knew and understood their patients, including their preferences, wishes, personal histories and backgrounds. Staff who acted as a chaperone were aware of their responsibilities in maintaining a person’s dignity and safety during an intimate examination. 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.

Patient feedback we reviewed indicated that staff were kind and empathic. Results from the recent National GP Patient Survey reflected positive feedback. In particular, 93.5% of patients felt the healthcare professional they saw was very good or fairly good at treating them with care and concern (national average 85.6%), 89.8% was very good or fairly good at listening to them (national average 86.9%), and 94.4% had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to (national average 92.5%).

On the day of our on-site visit, we observed that staff spoke with patients in a dignified and respectful manner. This was also reflected in the GP National Patient Survey where 88% found the reception and administrative team to be helpful (national average 83%).

The practice had systems and processes to ensure people’s communication needs were met, to enable them to engage in their care and treatment, and for them to be supported to maximise their experience and outcomes. Multi-disciplinary team meetings helped support vulnerable patients. These included those requiring end-of-life care and patients with safeguarding concerns.

Staff were required to undertake specific training to improve their own knowledge and understanding of how to support different patients, for example equality and diversity, safeguarding, learning disability and autism.

The practice is accredited as Veteran Friendly and proactively identified patients with a military background to raise awareness of available support services.

There were systems and processes in place to promote patient’s independence and allow them control over their care and treatment. Patients were able to access appointments with a variety of clinical staff suitable to their needs. Patient information was available on the practice website which told patients how to access support groups and organisations. The practice had a carer’s register and staff helped patients and their carers find further information and access community and advocacy services. The recent National GP Patient Survey results showed that 95.4% of patients felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment (national average 91.2%).

Staff we spoke with knew how to respond to patient’s immediate needs and how to recognise when urgent help or support was required. There was a system for appointment triage that ensured patients with immediate needs had access to services, and this was supported by a daily duty doctor system. Staff were able to tell us about systems and training in place to support this, including the use of panic alarms, availability of emergency equipment and emergency management training.

The practice cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. Aculture of openness was fostered by managers, where staff felt empowered to speak up when issues occurred. Complaints and incidents were thoroughly reviewed, and learning was used to implement changes that enhanced the quality of care.

The management team and some staff told us about the star of the month recognition scheme, which was nominated by staff, to boost staff morale and recognise the hard work of colleagues.

Overall, feedback from staff was positive. Staff reported a good working environment, managers were visible, and the culture felt like a family. All staff felt supported and respected in their roles, but some felt that due to the workload and pressures of work on a day-to-day basis that sometimes they did not feel valued.

Leaders had taken steps to recognise and meet the wellbeing needs of staff, which included providing the necessary resources and facilities for safe working.