Cheriton Bishop & Teign Valley 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 outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

We reviewed the results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. A total of 120 surveys were completed which was a completion rate of 49%. The survey results reflected that people were consistently satisfied with how they were treated and cared for, and the percentages were all higher than the national averages.

The survey showed:

94% of respondents were positive about the overall experience of the service (national average of 75%).

During their last appointment, 98% of respondents said the healthcare professional (HCP) was good at listening to them (national average of 87%).

97% of respondents said the HCP treated them with care and concern (national average of 86%).

In addition, 99% of respondents said they had confidence and trust in the HCP they saw or spoke to (national average of 93%).

The Friends and Family Test (FFT) from April 2025 to Feb 2026 showed consistently high levels of satisfaction with the service.

The service invited people to provide feedback to CQC as part of this assessment. We received 177 positive feedback comments out of a total of 188. There were many compliments thanking the staff for their care and support during difficult times. People repeatedly described the staff as “caring”, “kind”, and treating them with respect. The staff put them at ease, went above and beyond to support them, and people were not rushed during appointments. One of them commented, “The care, kindness and compassion we have received from ALL the Doctors, Nurses, Pharmacists and reception staff is exemplary.”

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.

There were arrangements to promote people’s privacy and dignity. For example, there were notices around the service advising that chaperones were available and how to request a chaperone. Conversations in consulting rooms could not be overheard and were equipped with privacy curtains. There was a room available for private conversation if needed. Building work was due to commence to extend the facilities including the waiting room which would factor in people’s privacy.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took into account people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were understood and met.

The 2025 National GP Patient Survey data reflected 97% of respondents said during their last appointment, they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment (national average of 91%).

People’s feedback provided various examples of how staff had gone “above and beyond” to meet their needs and those of their families. One person described the service, “In moments of uncertainty or difficulty, their calm reassurance and thoughtful guidance have made a meaningful difference to my wellbeing.”

Meeting minutes reviewed showed that clinicians routinely discussed and documented personalised care, considering people’s personal, family and social background and linked in with external service partners to meet their needs.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service was flexible in fulfilling people’s needs. The service was located remotely and they provided dispensary services, which people appreciated for its convenience. In addition, the service could arrange for people to collect their prescriptions at the branch site or the local post office. If necessary, the prescriptions could be delivered to people’s homes by the local community support service. The arrangements followed suitable processes, procedures and risk assessment to ensure safe medicine transfer, storage and delivery.

The service understood their patient demographic well. They had a cohort of older people registered at the service who wished to remain in their own home in a rural area, but with social isolation and required additional social care. The service identified and maintained a register of vulnerable people, flagged them up and signposted them to the local community support service and local wellbeing charity, where people could be transported to medical appointments or other social activities to promote physical, mental and social wellbeing. The service had regular meetings with social workers to discuss the vulnerable people on the register and to review their changing needs.

Staff considered people’s needs and barriers to care and made adjustment to support and maximise people’s independence.For example, the service signposted people to strength and balance classes provided by the charity to help with improving people’s mobility and promote independence.

To promote independence, the service referred people in need to the urgent community response team (UCR team) so that people could stay safe at home, receiving short-term intervention following hospital discharge or during a period of ill health. (The UCR team offers urgent care to people at their own place of residence, aiming to reduce hospital admissions.)

The service encouraged people to book appointments with their named GPs for continuity of care, but people could choose other GPs if they wished to. People could access information in the service such as posters and on the service’s website to support them in making health decisions.

The service had disabled access and hearing loops to promote independence.

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.

The service triaged appointment requests on the same day they were received. The service had enough capacity to offer same-day appointments to all people who were clinically indicated. The service was flexible to convert the type of appointments to meet their immediate needs. For example, carried out home visits when necessary.

Staff explained how people’s needs were prioritised, and they had received appropriate training to recognise when urgent help or support was required. The service had a medical emergency standard operating procedure and carried out role play in managing medical emergencies. Staff we spoke with were familiar with the process for referring people to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams.

The service reviewed data from telephone reports every month and adjusted the receptionist workforce in answering people’s calls accordingly. People said their calls were responded to quickly and several of them commented they were almost always first in the queue when calling the service.

People’s feedback was consistently positive, sharing different examples of their experience of receiving timely and appropriate appointments, treatment, investigation and onward referral to hospital or specialty clinic within the same day. People frequently described the service as “efficient” and “quick to respond”.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

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. The leaders bought an ice machine for staff use during the heat of summer. The leaders provided a selection of fresh fruits and healthy snacks in the staff lunch area every week to promote healthy eating. The service had wellbeing champions to look after staff wellbeing.

All staff who provided feedback to us said that they were well supported and valued by the leaders. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service. Staff commonly described that they were a great team and all members of staff (both clinical and non-clinical of all roles) worked together to provide person-centred care. They could approach the leaders at any time for advice, guidance or concerns. Staff told us the service supported them in professional development and career progression. Staff shared examples of how the leaders supported flexible working arrangements to accommodate individual needs and work-life balance, such as during ill health or other personal circumstances.

Staff provided various examples of how improvements were made based on their feedback. For example, long-term condition appointment times were extended to ensure adequate time for thorough clinical reviews. Staff wanted to have a bench to sit outside in the garden during lunchtime. The leaders bought a picnic bench in response to this.

The service arranged social events such as theatre trips, summer barbeques and Christmas parties for staff to enjoy. The service carried out regular team-building days. For example, they recently looked at the 6 pillars of lifestyle medicine, which were evidence-based lifestyle interventions to help with well-being. They reflected on the learning on how they could apply the knowledge to both the people and staff.