Parson Drove 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

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 Requires Improvement. At this inspection, the rating remains Requires Improvement. This is because the provider had not always taken actions to make patients feel listened to.

We assessed a total of 5 quality statements from this key question. The service mostly listened to and people’s needs, views and wishes. However, we received mixed feedback from patients; some people told is that they did not always understand their rights or felt they had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Feedback from patients showed that some people did not always feel supported and there had been a high volume of complaints submitted to the provider in the last 12 months. The evidence from the GP national patient survey was mixed, however indicated that the practice mostly treated people with kindness, empathy, and compassion.

The chair of the PPG provided positive feedback about the kindness and compassion of staff, particularly the practice’s new practice manager. Most staff told us that there was a positive and friendly supportive culture. Leaders shared examples of kindness, compassion and dignity shown by staff to patients.

The provider had created an action plan in response to the findings from the GP national patient survey. The actions did not contain any timeframes or measurable data to monitor the outcomes. Therefore, oversight of these actions could be improved to ensure that patients' needs are being met and their voice heard.

We saw that leaders were working to build relationships with staff conducive to a positive and open culture. The practice mostly respected patients’ privacy and dignity.

Some people told us that they did not feel their individual needs were always considered. The evidence from the GP national patient survey demonstrated the practice mostly treated people as individuals, however the patients’ responses for these categories were slightly below the national and local area averages. The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who stated that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment was 80%. In addition, 80% of patients felt listened to and 91% had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw.

Where feedback was less positive, the provider used this to further improve quality. During the inspection we were told of projects that had arisen directly as a result of responding to patient feedback; for example, improving access. This had resulted in more appointments being available for patients. Practice data showed since this implementation there had been an improvement.

Although this was an improvement made from patient feedback, there were occasions where patient feedback was not always considered as much as it could have been. Therefore, further engagement with patients to treat people as individuals was required.

There was a home visit policy in place which had been implemented in August 2024. We did not find any specific issues relating to home visits. Leaders told us about examples of reasonable adjustments available for patients to enable them to be treated as individuals. There was not a reasonable adjustment policy in place relating to patients. There was also limited evidence of reasonable adjustments being recorded on the patient records.Following our inspection leaders told us that they had introduced a reasonable adjustment protocol for patients.

We received feedback from some patients that staff had not always responded to their immediate needs. For example, some people told us their appointments were not always booked with the most appropriate clinician. Patient feedback also highlighted delays relating to complaints that were not responded to in a timely manner.

Staff and leaders were committed to working in partnership with their patients and aimed to empower them to be active partners in their care. They understood that there were still areas of improvement to be made so that patients felt that they had choices in their care.

The provider used the information collected for the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) and performance against national screening programmes to monitor outcomes for patients. Where feedback was less positive, the provider responded proactively. However, the practice was still in the process of implementing improvements.

A private room was available if patients were distressed or wanted to discuss sensitive issues.

Patients had access to British Sign Language and translation services to enable personalised communication. However, some people told us that staff did not always support them to understand their rights and did not always feel they had choice and control over their own care, treatment, and well-being.

Staff and leaders were committed to working in partnership with their patients and aimed to empower them to be active partners in their care. However, improvements were still required in order to enable and embed this.

The practice was working closely with the PPG to make the necessary improvements and listen to patients. Although they had started to develop good links with other organisations to support people to access services where appropriate, this required embedding.

Leaders told us they cared about and promoted the well-being of their staff and supported staff to deliver person-centred care. They explained the practice celebrated staff birthdays and religious festivals. We observed a positive and supportive culture across the team.

Leaders told us that they had applied an ‘open door’ policy, and we saw evidence that this had been implemented.

Leaders told us that they had created a system to manage shift patterns and staff wellbeing for reception and admin teams to ensure safety in managing workload during periods of leave/absence. However, there was no system or process for the clinical staff.

Some staff told us that there had been improvements in the culture and communication since our previous inspection. Most staff told us they felt supported by the leadership team.

Leaders told us that they had conducted a workforce gap analysis in June 2024 to identify areas requiring recruitment or skill enhancement. As a result, leaders told us that they had developed a comprehensive training matrix and introduced mentorship programs for all staff. This had been documented in an action plan but was not yet fully in place or evaluated.

Leaders told us; to promote a culture of wellbeing and support to enhance staff satisfaction and retention they had introduced monthly well-being sessions, including mindfulness workshops and physical health initiatives. Staff we spoke to were not aware of these programmes.