Dr Jinmi & Partners Also known as Houghton Regis 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

This means we looked for evidence the service involved people in their care and treatment, and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection we rated this key question Good.

At this inspection, the rating has changed to Requires Improvement.

This is because the provider had not taken actions to help maintain the privacy and safety of people using the service, and did not always promote the wellbeing of staff to support them to deliver person-centred care.

Some staff members told us about how they treated people as individuals and some staff had completed training to help them support autistic people and people with a learning disability.

However, systems for responding to people’s immediate needs and to make sure care and treatment met peoples’ needs and preferences were not always suitable.

Feedback from people using the service was mixed, with some people describing a positive experience and others saying they did not feel staff always treated them with kindness, empathy and compassion.

Feedback from patients was mixed about whether they felt staff involved them in decisions about their care and treatment and listened to their concerns.

This service scored 45 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had not done all they could to help make sure consultations and telephone calls with patients, and discussions with other staff could not be overheard. The practice had not considered or taken actions to help maintain the privacy and safety of people using the service. For example, removing or deactivating letterboxes in doors to doctors’ consultation rooms and taking steps to minimise any risks due to poor soundproofing throughout the building.

Six reviews about the practice had been posted on the NHS website in the year leading up to this inspection.

Three of the reviews posted on the NHS website rated the practice 5 out of 5 stars, meaning the people writing them would be extremely likely to recommend the service to friends and family. These reviewers described staff as kind, compassionate, caring, friendly and patient.

However, 1 of the other reviews gave the practice 2 out of 5 stars, and a further reviewer gave the practice 1 out of 5 stars, meaning the people leaving these reviews would be unlikely or extremely unlikely to recommend the service to friends and family. People who had used the service described staff as unkind, uncaring and disrespectful.

Some staff told us patients were sometimes upset by how staff had engaged with them and that the practice had received a number of complaints about staffs’ attitude towards people using the service.

The practice was an accredited ‘Veteran Friendly’ practice, meaning the practice had a dedicated clinician who has specialist knowledge of military related health conditions and veteran specific health services, to help support serving members of the Armed Forces, ex-service personnel, and their immediate family and carers to access the best possible care and treatment.

However, although the practice asked patients newly registering with the practice if they had served in the Armed Forces and leaders told us the practice offered veterans quicker access to appointments, practice staff did not know what other support was available or which clinicians in the practice had this specialist knowledge.

The findings of the 2024 GP Patient Survey showed 92% of the people who responded to the survey said during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. This was in line with the national average.

Since July 2022, there has been a legal requirement for providers to make sure their staff receive training to help them support autistic people and people with a learning disability. The provider showed us evidence 12 of the 15 non-clinical and 4 of the 10 clinical members of staff employed by the practice had started suitable training.

We did not see evidence staff were aware of their ‘Duty of Candour’ and when it may be appropriate to apologise, for example if a patient was affected by an incident.

Several patients who provided feedback to CQC told us they felt staff were rude and unhelpful. People told us they felt the aggressive tone from some staff was a barrier to them, and others, accessing care and treatment. Others told us they felt the practice had not supported them as they had hoped, staff were dismissive of their concerns or had not shown interest in helping them.

Although staff told us there was a small room off the reception area they could offer to people who were distressed or needed a private area, for example to have confidential discussions, this room was a working area and was not suitable to use as a ‘quiet’ and ‘confidential’ area.

The provider had completed a risk assessment in August 2024 in relation to violent, abusive and aggressive patients. In this assessment, the provider stated all staff had received training in dealing with abusive, aggressive and violent patients, including in de-escalation techniques and customer service. However, we did not see evidence any staff had completed this training in the last 5 years or more.

However, the practice displayed posters advising patients about the practice’s ‘zero tolerance’ approach in the reception area, the Zero Tolerance Policy was available on the practice’s website and there was a recorded message advising people of the policy when they telephoned the practice.

There were some arrangements for staff to seek assistance if needed, however these needed strengthening, for example for staff working during the practice’s extended opening times.

The practice shared with us an incident where a member of staff had received a verbal threat. Although the Police were contacted for advice, leaders had not fully acted on the advice given or shared the advice and learning with other staff, to promote their safety.

Non-clinical staff told us there would be one person on reception during the practice’s extended opening times. Staff told us they felt concerned about this because sometimes patients who had been ‘buzzed’ into the building would accidentally enter the front office. Leaders did not provide us with any assessments outlining how any risks were managed.

Generally, staff said they had good working relationships with other staff and that the practice had a pleasant and calm atmosphere to work in. Staff told us colleagues were happy to help each other and worked well as a team. However, some staff told us they felt supported by only some of their colleagues and that some members of staff could have “good and bad days”, for example in how they spoke to others.

Whilst special occasions, such as birthdays, were celebrated, and every member of staff received a gift from the provider at Easter and Christmas and were invited to a Christmas meal, the provider had not invested in other arrangements to promote staff wellbeing, for example an employee assistance programme staff could access if they needed.

At the time of our inspection, the provider was responding to feedback about staff wages and sick pay.