Heswall and Pensby Group Practice

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. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 75 (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 treated people with kindness, compassion and dignity. Staff took account of people's individual needs and treated them with respect.

Staff adapted their communication and approach to meet individual needs and support people to engage in their care and treatment. For example, learning from feedback provided by a patient with a hearing impairment was used to improve staff understanding of communication needs and support future patient interactions.

People were given opportunities to discuss concerns, ask questions and participate in decisions about their care and treatment. Family members, carers and advocates were involved where appropriate to support understanding and decision-making.

Feedback from people using the service helped leaders identify opportunities to improve people's experiences of care. Leaders had acted on this feedback and continued to monitor patient experience through national and local surveys to assess whether improvements had been effective.

The service tailored care and treatment to people's individual needs, preferences and circumstances. Staff considered people's communication needs, health conditions and personal situations when providing care and support.

Reasonable adjustments were made for people who required additional support. For example, autistic people and people with a learning disability or other additional needs could be offered longer appointments, adapted communication methods or continuity with a named clinician where appropriate.

Staff adapted information and support to help people understand their care and treatment. People were encouraged to participate in decisions about their care and support, and consultations took account of individual circumstances and preferences.

Additional support was available for people who may experience barriers to accessing care, including people with complex needs, carers and those requiring home visits. Continuity of care was prioritised for people with more complex needs, including care home residents and people approaching the end of life. The provider had also developed a carers' information booklet to help carers access local support services and resources.

For example, a patient with a learning disability was supported to continue seeing their preferred clinician for appointments to help maintain engagement with care. Feedback from carers and care homes indicated that staff understood people's individual circumstances and adapted care accordingly.

People were supported to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. Staff discussed treatment options, risks and benefits and supported people to make choices that reflected their individual circumstances, preferences and goals.

People were encouraged to participate in decisions about medicines, treatment and future care planning. Where appropriate, staff provided additional information and follow-up discussions to support informed decision-making.

The service supported people to manage their own health and wellbeing through education, information and practical advice. Reviews considered people's individual circumstances, treatment burden and quality of life when discussing ongoing care and treatment. For example, medication reviews considered whether treatments remained beneficial and whether changes were needed to reflect people's preferences and overall wellbeing.

Future care planning reflected people's wishes and preferences and was reviewed when circumstances changed.

The service had arrangements in place to identify and respond to people's urgent needs. Requests for care were reviewed according to clinical need, and urgent concerns were prioritised to help ensure people received the right support at the right time.

People could access the service through a range of routes, including online, telephone and face-to-face contact. Staff provided support for people who were unable to use digital systems independently.

Leaders reviewed demand, capacity and appointment availability and adjusted services in response to operational pressures where required. The provider also reviewed referral pathways and follow-up arrangements to reduce delays and support continuity of care.

Staff used follow-up processes to identify people who required urgent review, intervention or additional support. Learning from incidents and concerns was used to strengthen arrangements and improve patient safety.

Leaders recognised workforce wellbeing as an organisational priority and monitored this through governance and workforce oversight processes. Staff wellbeing, retention, workforce capacity and future workforce requirements were reviewed to support a sustainable workforce.

Leaders had identified workforce morale as an area requiring improvement and implemented a structured wellbeing improvement programme. Staff feedback was used to identify priorities and develop improvement actions, and leaders provided updates on changes made in response to feedback. For example, staff feedback led to changes including the introduction of standardised sick pay arrangements and additional staff wellbeing initiatives.

Staff were supported through supervision, appraisal, mentoring and professional development opportunities. Leaders also supported career progression and succession planning to help develop future leaders and maintain workforce resilience.

Staff survey results demonstrated significant improvements in wellbeing, feeling valued and support from line managers. Feedback from staff during the assessment was overwhelmingly positive. Staff described a notable improvement in morale, wellbeing and organisational culture and felt supported by leaders and colleagues.