Dr I K Babar & Partners

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 has changed

The service was in breach of legal Regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, good governance, staffing and fit and proper persons employed.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

National GP Patient Survey data did not show that people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. The results showed that 65% of patients considered that at their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at treating them with care and concern, compared to 86% nationally and locally.

Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy. Staff we spoke with did not understand Gillick competency and there were no processes in place to ensure young adults had control over their own privacy and the amount of parental involvement in managing their care and support.

The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.
Patients’ personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were not always understood and met. Nor were patient communication needs which meant people were not fully involved in their care.
Results from the National GP Patient Survey were below average. They indicated that 69% of patients felt the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment, compared to 87% nationally and locally. 50% of patients felt the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at considering their mental wellbeing during their last general practice appointment, compared with 74% nationally and 76% locally.
 

The service did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff did not always help patients and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services.

The result of the National GP Patient Survey showed that 77% of respondents felt that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment, compared with 91% nationally and locally.

The service did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

There was a system for appointment triage, however, this system was not robust. There was no evidence that reception staff had received training or that they were being supervised ensuring triage was being completed correctly. There were no audits being completed. The leaders did not have any oversight with regards to triage and how people’s immediate needs are dealt with by staff employed at the service.

The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care

Some staff told us they felt valued by leaders. The provider ensured there were appropriate facilities for staff to take breaks. There was no evidence of resources available for staff sign posting them to support and leaders did not always take steps to recognise and meet the wellbeing needs of staff.

We asked if there was a plan in place to enable part-time staff, who were behind with their duties, to catch up on their work, or other staff with capacity to support them. The practice manager told us staff members would need to take annual leave from one of their other jobs in order to dedicate more hours at this practice. This did not consider the wellbeing of the staff member.