Adam House Medical Centre

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.

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 generally treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. We observed staff treating people with kindness and respect within the waiting room. Arrangements were in place to promote peoples’ privacy. Staff that chaperoned were aware of their responsibilities in maintaining a person’s dignity and safety during an intimate examination. However, we observed the challenges around maintaining people’s privacy in the reception area due to the layout.

National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. Both indicators were in line with the national average. For example, 83.5% of respondents stated that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at treating them with care and concern. This was in line with the national average of 85%.

The majority of feedback from people who used the service was positive about how staff treated them. People commented reception staff were kind, friendly and professional. However, a small number commented that not all reception staff were helpful or supportive.

Staff that chaperoned were aware of their responsibilities in maintaining a person’s dignity and safety during an intimate examination. Staff we spoke with followed the legal concept to whether a child under 16 could consent to medical treatment without parental permission.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. People’s communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care. People were asked at registration about their first language and a person’s preferred method of communication was recorded on their electronic record. Patient communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care.

Staff told us how they supported minority and marginalised groups of people. They told us people were supported to attend appropriate screening programmes regardless of how they identified themselves.

National GP Patient Survey data reflected people did not always feel involved in decisions about their care. For example, 83% of respondents stated that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. This was below the national average of 91%. However, feedback received from people by CQC who used the service indicated they did feel involved and the GPs provided clear explanations of any treatment, medication or next steps.

The service had identified 198 people registered with the service as carers which was 3% of the practice population. Carers were offered health checks and vaccinations and could be referred to the social prescriber or care co-ordinator for information and guidance on support available to them.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. They used feedback from the National GP Patient Survey, the patient participation group, complaints and comments to respond to people’s needs. The service had introduced a new telephone system, which included the option for people to request a call back, instead of waiting in the queue. The majority of appointments offered by the service were book on the day, with a small number of pre-bookable appointments. Staff were also able to offer people appointments with the ‘on day service’ if a suitable appointment was not available or they wished to be seen in an evening or at the weekend. Reception staff had clear guidance on conditions that were appropriate to be seen by the nurse practitioner. There was a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support.

Feedback from people who used the service generally reported positive experiences to appointment requests. However, some people commented it was difficult to get an appointment and the limited use of digital technology by the service.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. 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 regular breaks and rest areas. Feedback from staff was mostly positive about the support they received from leaders and most staff told us they were listened to and were supported when they required additional support.