The Limes 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

Patient feedback from the GP National Patient Survey was in line with local and national averages in a number of areas. We were unable to gain assurances that the practice had access to interpreters to support people. We were told there was a hearing loop to provide support to people with hearing difficulties, however none of the staff or management we spoke with were aware of how to use the loop.

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.

Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy. National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. 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 did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. For example: A hearing loop was in place, however none of the staff were aware of how to use it.

From the minutes of the staff meeting held in November 2024, a decision had been made that males were to use the toilets upstairs. We found no evidence to demonstrate that risk assessments had been completed for this and how this would impact on people with mobility issues.

From speaking with some of the management team, they acknowledged the practice was in a diverse area and English was not the first language for many of the people in the community. We were told that the practice had access to the language line, however this could be expensive, so family members were relied on to translate. There were some staff in the practice who spoke other languages, but they could not communicate in all of the local languages. An interpreter was available through a local community group and people were directed there if they needed help. We were unable to gain assurances that any checks had been done to ensure the interpreter had been DBS checked or what confidentiality agreements were in place.

The service promoted 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 service did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. We were told on the day of the onsite assessment that some of the senior clinicians were not approachable and made it difficult for staff to discuss their concerns about people's care and treatment. We were provided with evidence to demonstrate how people were not being seen urgently as requested and people were having to wait to get treatment until another clinician could see the person in need of care.

The majority of staff told us that the wellbeing of staff had not improved and staff felt unable to approach some of the senior clinicians due to their lack of support. Regular staff meetings were now in place, but we were told that staff felt unable to raise concerns without fear of retribution. There was a new leadership team in place, however there continued to be a breakdown in communication and we received no assurances that there were plans in place to improve staff wellbeing.

On speaking with clinical staff, we found there was regular supervision was in place, but again clinical staff reported being uncomfortable in speaking with some of the senior clinicians as they were unhelpful to staff and provided no guidance.

We were told staff appraisals were in place, however staff reported that they were provided with no opportunities to feedback or share concerns. Staff were expected to carry out tasks that they had no training for. We saw evidence to demonstrate that staff had been asked to sign an agreement to do certain tasks, which they had not done before. Following staff leaving certain roles had not been replaced and the workload was increasing for the existing staff.