Park 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 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, dignity and respect and were supported to be involved in decisions about their care. The practice responded to individual needs, made reasonable adjustments to improve access and provided support for carers and vulnerable people. Staff felt valued and supported, helping to promote a positive and caring culture.

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 always 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. There was a sign at the front desk asking people to wait if they needed to speak with reception and to afford anyone already at the desk privacy. Privacy screens were available in the clinical rooms. The layout of the reception and waiting areas supported patient privacy and confidentiality. The main waiting area was located separately from the reception desk, and queue management barriers were in place to reduce the risk of conversations being overheard. Consultation rooms provided private spaces for discussions and examinations, and staff had access to areas where confidential conversations could take place when required.

The results of the National GP Patient Surveys of 2025 and 2026 showed the practice was broadly in line with the national average in some areas. This included the percentage of people who described their overall experience as good, and that they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to. The percentage of those who stated that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at listening to them, was in line with the national average in 2025 but below national average in 2026 at 78% compared to 87.1%. The percentage of respondents to the GP Patient Survey in 2025 and 2026 who stated that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at treating them with care and concern was in line with the national average.

Staff we spoke with understood Gillick competency. Chaperones were available and staff had undertaken chaperone training.

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.

National GP Patient Survey results for 2025 and 2026 showed 89% of patients felt involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment, compared with the England average of 91%.

Patients with specific communication needs were flagged on the practice clinical system. The practice had access to language line to support those with specific communication needs. A hearing loop was available at reception. 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 made reasonable adjustments to support patients with hearing impairments. Staff described individualised approaches, including supporting patients who relied on lip reading and those who used communication applications on their mobile phones. A hearing loop was also available at reception to facilitate communication and improve access to services.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The practice had access to social prescribers working within the PCN. Social prescribers supported people to access community-based services and provided assistance with issues such as social isolation, housing, benefits advice and bereavement support.

Staff told us they involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and encouraged them to participate in care planning where appropriate. Care and treatment options were discussed with patients to enable informed decision-making and support individual preferences.

Information about services and support available within the local community was accessible to patients, helping them to maintain independence and manage their health and wellbeing. Staff understood the importance of recognising people's diverse needs and ensuring care was tailored to support their choices and personal circumstances.

Where appropriate, patients were signposted to external agencies and voluntary sector organisations to help them access additional support and improve their overall wellbeing.

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 practice operated a total triage system meaning patient requests were assessed using digital, telephone, or in-person routes. Requests were prioritised and directed to the most appropriate clinician or service. The practice had a crisis pathway with reception staff informed of ‘red flags’ and criteria for referral to the duty doctor. There was also an escalation process in response to Martha’s Rule (Martha's Rule is a patient safety initiative that aims to ensure the concerns of patients, families, carers and staff are listened to and acted upon).

They also considered the needs of carers. The practice identified and supported approximately 270 registered carers, representing around 2.7% of the patient population. Information and support for carers was readily available, including carers’ registration and consent forms, information packs and a monthly carers’ newsletter. The practice used questionnaires to monitor carers’ health and wellbeing, including physical and mental health needs and offered additional support where concerns were identified. Carers were clearly identified on the clinical system to help ensure their needs were recognised and accommodated, including offering appointments at preferred times where possible. The practice also had a designated carers’ champion to provide support and promote carers’ services.

Staff told us they felt valued and supported by the leadership team. They described an open-door culture and said they could raise concerns without fear of reprisal. During the inspection, we saw evidence of staff being supported appropriately following an emergency situation. Regular team meetings, annual appraisals, staff social events and staff wellbeing initiatives, including access to an anxiety coaching service, were in place. The practice undertook annual risk assessments to support staff health, safety and wellbeing and made adjustments where necessary. Lone working was limited to the practice manager and lead GP and appropriate arrangements were in place to mitigate associated risks.