Westminster 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 that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. The rating remains good following this assessment.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The experience of people who used the service as indicated in the national GP Patient Survey was below local and national averages. The survey indicated 73% of patients (compared to 86% nationally and 88% locally) felt that during their last appointment the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at treating them with care and concern and 70% of patients (compared to 87% nationally and 88% locally) felt healthcare professionals were good at listening. The provider acted on the views of patients; however, they did not have an effective system to record all action taken and evaluate that the action taken had led to improved patient satisfaction in the areas identified in the national GP Patient Survey.Following the assessment the provider introduced a revised patient survey to capture patients views about how caring they found the practice to be.

We spoke with 5 people during the assessment who told us that they were listened to and treated with respect and kindness. Friends and Family Test data for November 2025 to January 2026 demonstrated that 88% of respondents stated their experience of the service was good or very good.

We noted that the response rate to both the National Patient Survey and the Family and Friends Test had a low completion rate (23% - 25%).

Staff displayed understanding and a non-judgemental attitude towards people. Staff told us how they gave people appropriate and timely information to understand their care, treatment, or condition.

Chaperones were available to support people and notices were displayed to advise people about the role of a chaperone. There were arrangements to ensure confidentiality and privacy at the service.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. Staff had been provided with training in equal opportunities. Staff we spoke with told us how they ensured the individual communication needs of people were known and accommodated. For example, a translation service was used to support people, a hearing loop was available on reception and longer appointments could be provided. Staff told us there were alerts on people’s records highlighting communication needs to enable them to be fully involved in their care.

The results of the National GP Patient Survey were below local and national averages. The survey showed that 84% of patients (compared to 91% nationally and 92% locally) felt that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. The survey also indicated that 80% of patients had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to during their last appointment (compared to 93% nationally and 93% locally).The provider did not have an effective system to record all action taken and evaluate that the action taken had led to improved patient satisfaction in the areas identified in the national GP Patient Survey. Following the assessment the provider introduced a revised patient survey to capture patients views about how they found the practice promoted their independence, choice and control.

We spoke with 5 people during the assessment who told us that they felt involved in their care and treatment. Friends and Family Test data for November 2025 to January 2026 demonstrated that 88% of respondents stated their experience of the service was good or very good.

Staff told us how they promoted people’s independence, so people had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Information could be made available to meet people’s needs such as large print. The provider did not have readily accessible information about screening in easy read formats that could be given to people, this was obtained following the assessment. We spoke to 5 patients who were positive about their involvement in decisions about care and treatment.

Staff and leaders told us how they responded to people’s immediate needs. People’s needs were prioritised to identify those who required urgent attention or referral. Staff had been trained in basic life support. Sepsis warning signs and protocols were displayed around the practice. People’s records reflected how their needs were to be met and indicated people who may need an immediate response from the service, such as people who were receiving care at the end of their lives. Urgent referrals were followed up to ensure that people had received an appointment.

Leaders told us how they had taken steps to meet the wellbeing needs of staff, which included providing resources and facilities for safe working, such as regular breaks and rest areas. Reasonable adjustments were made to support staff and requests for flexible working were considered. Social events took place to promote team working. The provider told us that they had plans to provide wellbeing events for staff. An online counselling service was available for all staff and their families.

We received feedback from 13 members of staff. They told us there was good teamwork and support from colleagues. Overall, they felt valued and supported by leaders and that they could contribute to decision making about how the service operated and that their opinions would be listened to. However, some staff told us improvements could be made to communication with the management team, to the premises and equipment and to the terms and conditions of employment. This was brought to the attention of the provider. We noted that a formal way of regularly gathering staff opinions was not in place. Following the assessment the provider sent us a staff survey they had recently carried out and they told us they were introducing regular monthly meetings.