The Cedar Brook Practice Also known as The Cedar Brook 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, in June 2016 we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The most recent results from the National GP Patient Survey published in July 2025 were generally below average in relation to how people were treated. For example:

75.1% of people responded positively to the healthcare professional being good at listening to them compared to the national average of 86.9%.

75.8% of people responded positively to the healthcare professional being good at treating them with care and concern compared to the national average of 85.6%.

84.2% of people responded positively to having confidence and trust in the healthcare professional compared to the national average of 92.5%.

56.3% of people responded positively to their overall experience of the GP practice compared to the national average of 75.4%.

The practice had taken steps to address the above results, but there was limited evidence yet that the action taken was effective.

People we spoke to during the site visit were more positive about their experiences. They said staff members were very nice and supported them. They said they were treated with dignity, respect and compassion.

Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy. 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 treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Patients’ personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were understood and met. Patient communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care.

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 listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. There was a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. Staff told us they were valued by leaders. Leaders had taken steps to recognise and meet the wellbeing needs of staff, which included the necessary resources and facilities for safe working, such as regular breaks and rest areas. Staff reported being supported if they were struggling at work. However, some staff reported that other staff sickness absence was affecting them.