Trinity 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 have rated the practice as good for providing caring services as people were treated with kindness and compassion. Feedback received from patients was positive. Staff demonstrated how they protected patient privacy and dignity and treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. There were high levels of staff satisfaction. Staff were proud to work for the practice and spoke highly of its culture.

This service scored 80 (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 treated patients with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff knew and understood their patients, including their preferences, wishes, personal histories and backgrounds. Patient feedback we reviewed indicated that staff were kind and empathic. In particular, the outcomes of the National GP Patient Survey (2024) regarding kindness, compassion and dignity were slightly above national averages. We saw that 96.5% had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to (national average 92.3%), 89% felt the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at listening to them (national average 86.7%), 86% felt the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at treating them with care and concern (national average 85.3%) and 93.2% felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment (national average 90.9%). We received direct feedback from 4 patients who were positive and described staff as helpful, professional and efficient. They felt clinicians listened to them and involved them in their care and treatment.

There were policies and procedures in place for staff to follow to ensure information about patients was treated confidentially, as well as to respect their privacy. Staff who acted as a chaperone were aware of their responsibilities in maintaining a person’s dignity and safety during an intimate examination. 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 observed a culture of kindness and respect between colleagues. Staff spoke highly about the support from peers and leaders.

On the day of our on-site inspection at both sites, we observed that staff spoke with patients in a dignified and respectful manner. This was also reflected in the GP National Patient Survey where 88% found the reception and administrative team to be helpful (national average 83%).

The practice had systems and processes to ensure people’s communication needs were met, to enable them to engage in their care and treatment, and for them to be supported to maximise their experience and outcomes. Multi-disciplinary team meetings helped support vulnerable patients. These included those requiring end-of-life care and patients with safeguarding concerns. Staff were required to undertake specific training to improve their own knowledge and understanding of how to support different patients, for example equality and diversity, safeguarding, learning disability and autism.

There were systems and processes in place to promote patient’s independence and allow them control over their care and treatment. Patients were able to access appointments with a variety of clinical staff suitable to their needs. Referrals were made to services to support improved health and general wellbeing, for example there was a health and wellbeing coach who provided tailored support on nutrition, healthy eating, sustainable weight management, and ran a monthly group session educating participants on calorie awareness, whole foods, and long-term lifestyle changes. We reviewed an individual case where support and intervention by this team had resulted in a positive impact on a patient’s health and wellbeing.

Patient information was available on the practice website which told patients how to access support groups and organisations. There was a Carer’s register and staff helped patients and their carers find further information and access community and advocacy services. The practice had identified 1,074 patients on their carers’ register (approximately 4% of the practice population). This had improved considerably since our previous inspection in 2016, when 177 had been identified. The practice told us the effective use of the care navigators and health and wellbeing coaches to support patients and their families had identified more carers.

Staff we spoke with knew how to respond to patient’s immediate needs and how to recognise when urgent help or support was required. Staff were able to tell us about systems and training in place to support this, including the use of panic alarms, availability of emergency equipment and emergency management training. For example, basic life support and sepsis awareness. Leaders ensured that appropriate staff were always available throughout the day to support patients in case of an emergency.

There was a strong commitment to the promotion of staff wellbeing. As part of the assessment, we interviewed 10 members of staff and received 27 staff questionnaires. Feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Staff told us there was a good working environment and a positive culture. They told us they felt respected and valued, and that managers were supportive. Staff told us there was a daily duty manager who was visible and accessible to all staff, irrespective of which location they were working from each day. This had been particularly important during the refurbishment period, when some staff had been displaced from their usual working locations. Staff told us managers and colleagues were supportive when faced with challenging behaviour by patients. We saw that staff had undertaken conflict resolution training to support them in their role. Staff were positive in their reflections of working at the practice and the leadership team’s approach to learning and improvement. Clinical staff told they felt supported on a day-to-day basis clinically by their peers and leaders. Other staff told us they felt valued and supported to develop personally and professionally. There were systems and process for staff to have regular opportunities to provide feedback, raise concerns and suggest ways to improve the service or staff experiences. These included meetings, one-to-ones and appraisals. Staff rotas were maintained, and efforts made to ensure appropriate staffing levels to support adequate work breaks. Staff gave examples of how they felt their wellbeing was considered and gave examples of a food pantry which was provided free-of-charge by the partners, having an extra day’s leave on their birthday month, staff lunches and team-building sessions. The practice had also introduced an employee of the month programme to recognise and celebrate individual contributions and achievements. Staff told us these gestures made them feel valued.

The practice provided an employee assistance programme for staff and their dependants. We saw managers had undertaken Mental Health First Aid Training to support staff. The practice had introduced a new return-to-work process to support those who had been on long-term absence.