Valley View Surgery

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

Feedback from staff regarding a culture of kindness and respect between colleagues was mixed. Concerns were raised from and about staff at different levels of the practice regarding bullying, intimidation, and lack of support when such concerns were raised. Disputes between colleagues had resulted in limited communication between them. Results from the National GP Patient Survey 2025 regarding kindness, compassion and dignity were below national averages. The practice did not carry out its own patient or staff surveys. There were processes in place to promote patients’ independence and allow them control over their care and treatment. Patients were referred or signposted to services to support improved health and wellbeing. Staff knew and understood their patients, including their preferences, wishes, and backgrounds.

This key question has been rated as Requires Improvement.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

It was evident from our discussions with staff that staff knew and understood their patients, including their preferences, wishes, and backgrounds. Those who had suffered a recent bereavement were supported, and this often included a home visit by the GP and supportive chats with reception staff at the practice. Results from the National GP Patient Survey 2025 regarding kindness, compassion and dignity were below national averages. For example, 79% of patients said they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to during their last appointment compared to the local and national average of 93%, and 70% felt the healthcare professional was good at listening to them during their last appointment compared to the local and national average of 87%. We received 15 responses in our request for direct feedback from patients, 14 of which were positive and described staff as kind and helpful. The practice did not carry out its own patient surveys. They told us that this is something they would consider carrying out. There were processes in place to ensure information about patients was treated confidentially, and that their privacy was respected. Staff who acted as a chaperone were aware of their responsibilities in maintaining a person’s dignity and safety during an intimate examination.

The practice had systems and processes to ensure patient’s communication needs were met, to enable them to engage in their care and treatment, and for them to be supported to maximise their experience and outcomes. Multi-disciplinary team meetings included discussions about vulnerable patients and any safeguarding concerns. Staff were required to undertake specific training to improve their own knowledge and understanding of how to support different patients, for example equality and diversity and safeguarding training. Staff had not completed learning disability and autism training; we were told that this was in progress after recent discussions with stakeholders.

There were processes in place to promote patient’s independence and allow them control over their care and treatment.

Referrals were made to services to support improved health and general wellbeing, for example for mental health and weight management support. Social prescribers and health and wellbeing coaches supported this work.

Information was available on the practice website which signposted patients to support groups and organisations.

Staff we spoke with knew how to respond to patient’s immediate needs and how to recognise when urgent help or support was required, including the use of panic alarms and availability of emergency equipment. Staff received training in the use of emergency equipment and in basic life support.

There were several concerns raised to us before and during the assessment. This included concerns about the culture of the practice such as bullying, intimidation and disrespect. Concerns were raised from and about staff at different levels of the practice. Feedback from staff regarding a culture of kindness and respect between colleagues was mixed, with several staff at different levels reporting a lack of support, kindness and respect from some colleagues. There were reports of verbal altercations between colleagues, and accusations about staff misconduct. Disputes between colleagues had resulted in limited communication between them. At the time of the assessment there were ongoing attempts at mediation between staff, in an attempt to resolve some of these issues.

Feedback from staff was mixed; some staff told us they were well supported and enjoyed their work, whilst others told us that the practice was difficult to work in and that they were not respected and supported. All staff we spoke with told us they did not feel that the issues between staff had had any negative impact on patient care, and we did not see any evidence to refute this.

The main ways in which staff could provide feedback was in monthly meetings and yearly appraisals. The practice did not routinely carry out staff surveys but told us they had initiated a survey after the assessment was announced. The results of this survey had not been collated and reviewed at the time of our assessment.

Wellbeing activities arranged by the practice included staff parties and outings on special occasions.