Rectory Meadow 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 inspection, we rated this key question as Good. At this inspection, the rating for this key question has changed and is now rated as Outstanding.

This service scored 95 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice was exceptional at treating patients with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Patient, stakeholder and ancillary staff feedback indicated practice staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff that chaperoned patients were aware of their responsibilities in maintaining a person’s dignity and safety during an intimate examination, and we observed notices around the practice advising that chaperones were available and how to request one.

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.

We found that the culture of the team was patient-centred, and staff members we spoke with told us they felt empowered to deliver high-quality, considerate, and empathetic care. This was included in patient feedback we received, observations during the inspection, and positive results from both the National GP patient survey and the Friends and Family Test.

We reviewed the results from the National GP patient survey carried out from January to March 2025 (a total of 98 surveys were completed by patients which was a completion rate of 35%). The patient’s responses to the survey questions about helpfulness of staff were higher when compared to local and national averages. The survey showed:

• 90% of respondents found the reception and administrative team helpful, which was higher when compared to the local average (83%) and national average (83%).

• 77% of respondents found the member of staff they saw or spoke to was good at considering their mental wellbeing, which was higher when compared to the local average (74%) and national average (74%).

• 97% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last appointment, which was higher when compared to the local average (91%) and national average (90%).

The practice gathered NHS Friends and Family Test scores, which consistently reflected high levels of patient satisfaction. Feedback from patients was shared with staff to encourage and reinforce good practice. The practice used all comments as an opportunity for learning and improvement.

The practice treated patients 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.

From our review of clinical records, we saw individual patient communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care.

All staff had completed learning disability and autism training, and people with complex health needs were given longer appointments to review their needs. The practice offered a quiet place for people to sit whilst waiting for their appointments who may be anxious to wait in a busy and noisy room.

Arrangements were in place to identify and support people who were digitally excluded. For example, people without online access (approximately 19% of patients) could phone the practice and the reception team would complete the required processes to enable patient to access the required service or appointment.

The practice was exceptional at promoting people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

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

The practice identified patients with caring responsibilities. The practice’s computer system alerted staff if a patient was also a carer. The practice had identified 437 patients as carers, this equated to over 4% of the practice list. The practice website contained accurate information and contact details for local and national carers support groups, for example Amersham Carers Support Group and Carers Bucks. We were shown the written information available for carers to ensure they understood the various avenues of support available to them.

The practice provided information in a way that people could understand and offered time for discussion so patients could consider their options. Interpreters and accessible communication formats were available when needed. Staff had completed the relevant training required to promote independence.

Patients could access group consultations for a range of conditions, most of which were scheduled for Saturday mornings. Staff told us and feedback collected by the practice highlighted the group sessions promoted patients’ independence and choice, as the groups brought people together with similar conditions in a safe space.

The practice was exceptional in how they 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.

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, including mental health crisis teams.

A duty doctor was available each day to support non-clinical staff. People’s needs were usually managed on the day of contact with the service. This was confirmed when we reviewed the appointment system and performance dashboards during the site visit. The remaining were either signposted or offered an appointment in the future to meet their needs rather than having to call back. People were directed to the most appropriate person or service to meet their needs and ensure continuity of care where required.

Staff we spoke with knew the process to refer people for emergency support, including mental health crisis teams.

The practice always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they were valued by leaders and also each other. Leaders had taken numerous steps to measure, recognise and meet the wellbeing needs of staff, which included the necessary resources and facilities for safe working. There was an annual staff health and well-being survey alongside discussions of well-being in meetings, staff appraisals, clinical supervision and opportunistically during the working day. Leaders actively encouraged feedback, ideas and suggestions from staff and social events were actively scheduled.

The practice utilised the health and well-being coaches from the PCN to support staff and encouraged staff to consider health promotion activities within the local community. For example, to promote the health and wellbeing of both staff and patients and to increase visibility within the community, the practice was a registered ‘Park Run’ practice – a social prescribing project which encouraged GP practices to link with their local parkrun events to become parkrun practices. Staff and patient feedback highlighted the value of being visible within the community but outside of the practice. Other feedback highlighted since becoming a park run practice, people had started to increase their levels of activity which in turn had improved both their physical and mental health.

We received numerous examples of staff feedback which reported they had been supported at work. We saw team building days were established within the practice.

Members of staff independently told us, ‘The practice is not just a nice place to work, it’s a great place to work and they felt supported and valued’. Staff we spoke to told us, despite the challenges faced in primary care, leaders had taken positive actions and staff morale had improved over the years in terms of job satisfaction.

Staff told us they felt supported and provided examples of how leaders had checked in on their wellbeing. Staff reported feeling listened to and we saw how leaders acted upon feedback.

Staff we spoke with, and evidence seen demonstrated a high level of training opportunities for staff. Staff told us they were encouraged to expand their roles and achieve career progression.