Francis Grove 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.

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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. One patient described the service as “efficient and compassionate,” another said, “all staff are caring and professional.”

Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy. All consultations were carried out in private rooms. Reception staff had a room available if a patient wanted to speak with them in private. National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. For example, 90% of respondents said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment. This result was in line with local and national response.

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 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.

The practice was wheelchair accessible and had lifts to access all floors. However, the reception desk was high and not fully accessible for wheelchair users via a designated lowered desk for wheelchair users. Staff told us that patients could go to the far end of the reception desk which had an area where they could speak with patients in wheelchairs if needed. However, the practice was undergoing renovations and told us that this was being considered as part of the renovation improvements.

Patient communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment, and wellbeing. For example, the results of the most recent GP survey showed that 91%of patients said they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment.

Staff helped patients and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. However, there were some areas that could be improved with regards to patients accessing the service. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress.

There was a system for appointment triage that tried to ensure people with immediate needs had access to services. However, general feedback from patients indicated that some felt it was difficult to access the service and get an appointment, especially via the phone. The GP Survey responses results indicated that only 50% of respondents stated they found it easy to get through to the practice on the phone. Further to this only 36% of respondents said that they usually got to see or speak with their preferred healthcare professional. Both results were below the local and national averages.

Staff we spoke with also indicated that they were “stretched” especially around the busy times. We discussed with managers, and they acknowledged the pressures and told us they had increased staffing around these times to try and address it.

Staff we spoke with 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.

Feedback from staff indicated that they felt valued by leaders. 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 opportunities to take breaks. Leaders told us that they held regular meetings with all staff groups. We saw the practice had meetings at all levels including reception staff, clinical staff, governance, quality assurance and care co-ordinators meetings. Meeting minutes we reviewed from these meetings supported that workforce well-being was discussed.

Some staff reported being supported if they were struggling at work. Staff gave example of managers being supportive and referring to them as “professional,” “approachable” and “caring.” However, we received some feedback that some staff felt improvements could be made for managers to be more supportive. We discussed this with leaders, and they confirmed they would look at processes to ensure all staff felt confident to raise any concerns they had.