Prospect Medical Group

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 good.

This service scored 70 (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. 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.

The practice sent us some patient feedback they had received. There were 2 summaries of patient feedback regarding individual GPs which included almost all very good feedback.

The practice sent us 5 thank you cards received, which were positive and thanked the staff for good care and kindness.

However the National GP Patient Survey results were below national average for example;

Patients who stated that the last time they had a general practice appointment, the healthcare professional was good or very good at listening to them (01/01/2024 to 31/03/2024) was 70.2% compared to the national average 86.7%

Patients who stated that the last time they had a general practice appointment, the healthcare professional was good or very good at treating them with care and concern, was 72.7% compared to the national average 85.3%

Patients who stated that during their last GP appointment they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was 85.6%, compared to the national average 92.3%.

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.

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.

The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including patients with a learning disability, offering longer appointments when needed. The practice had carers identified via their register.

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.

We were concerned that leaders did not always understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Formulated and analysed feedback to the practice from patients was limited and therefore needs or shortcomings could not be fully understood.

Staff reported back to us that they always responded to people’s needs in the moment or acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. They knew the process for referral to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams.

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 and listened to by leaders. Steps had been taken 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 and leaders recognised if they had any specific needs.