Adelaide 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 looked for evidence the practice involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good.

At this assessment, we focused on 1 quality statement relating to the key question Caring: Kindness, compassion and dignity. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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 service was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

The practice consistently performed better than local and national averages in the 2026 National GP Patient Survey (GPPS) in relation to caring aspects of the service. This showed people felt listened to and felt they were treated with kindness.

• For example, 96% of respondents said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment This compared with the local average of 86% and the national average of 87%
• 95% of respondents said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last general practice appointment, compared with local average 84%. (National average 86%)
• 89% of respondents found the reception and administrative team at this GP practice helpful, compared with the local average of 83%. (National average 85%)
• 94% of respondents described their overall experience of this GP practice as good, compared with the local average of 75%. (National average 77%)

The GPPS data was supported by results of the Friends and Family Test (FFT) and direct feedback we received from patients. There had been 183 responses to the FFT between January 2025 and June 2026. We noted 94% were positive regarding the practice, with 65% describing their experience as Very Good and 29% as Good. None had thought the service poor.

During the assessment, we received direct feedback from 44 patients whose views supported the positive results regarding caring aspects of the service. Patients praised staff as being compassionate and understanding. Staff were described as very friendly, patient and helpful; other patients said staff were professional, thorough and attentive. Patients said staff took time to discuss their healthcare needs, and they felt fully involved in decision making. Patients consistently reported feeling really cared for and that they mattered. Wherever possible, staff tried to anticipate instances in which people may be in discomfort or distress and took all practical steps to minimise those risks and prevent them happening again in the future. For example, to reduce anxiety, both elements of annual health checks for people with a learning disability were offered on the same day so patients would not need to attend twice.

This positive feedback was confirmed in our discussion with the chair of the patient participation group. In addition, we received feedback from 19 members of staff, who told us the practice took pride in providing high-quality care; that patients were listened to and involved in decision-making about their care; that the practice was patient-centred and that it provided a warm and welcoming environment for patients and staff. Staff were highly motivated and inspired to offer care that was kind, empathetic and compassionate. Relationships between people who used the service and staff were strong, caring, respectful and supportive. These relationships were highly valued by staff and promote a culture of kindness and respect across the service.

Staff had undertaken chaperone training. Notices in the practice and on the practice website informed patients that chaperones were available. We saw staff had completed training in a range of other relevant topics such as customer care, complaints handling, conflict resolution and preventing radicalisation.

Staff had received training in consent, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and in relation to people with learning disabilities and autism. Staff 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 did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.