Woodlands Health 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. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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 service did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Feedback received as part of this assessment included that people were not always satisfied with how they had been spoken to and that they were not always treated with respect. Meeting minutes identified that this had been raised with staff, and they needed to consider their approach when speaking with people. However, during assessment, we observed staff speaking to a person at the reception, and this private conversation could be overheard by other people in the waiting area.

During our inspection of the waiting areas, we noted that no chaperone notice was displayed. Following the assessment, the provider told us they had added chaperone posters in the waiting rooms and consulting rooms.

However, national GP Patient Survey results for 2025 showed that 88% of respondents stated the healthcare professional was good at treating the patient with care and concern. This is above the national average of 85.6%.

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, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. They considered peoples’ wider health, care and well-being needs, and worked with partners to support them to access appropriate services.

Respondents to the National GP Patient Survey for 2025 reported positively towards the service they received with 90% stating that their needs were met. This was in line with the national average of 90% for patient satisfaction.

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

Respondents to the national GP patient survey for 2025 responded positively on the service they received, with 93% of respondents stating they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. This was above the national average of 91% for patient satisfaction.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs.

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.

Service processes to promote the wellbeing of their staff were not embedded. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they did not always feel valued and that some staff members were given preferential treatment. The service acknowledged that during substantial organisational change, they could have been more transparent with staff roles and the rationale for this. Leaders reported they have since taken steps to recognise and meet the wellbeing needs of staff by having administrative meetings and implemented suggested changes from staff feedback to improve morale and staff well-being. For example, the reception team asked for two members of staff to be on reception at the end of the day to address concerns about isolated working, the service told us they implemented this suggestion. The service had also made changes to the rota to rotate administrative duties ensuring staff were not undertaking the same tasks for prolonged periods.

We received feedback from 18 staff members; 9 respondents stated either they did not feel staff wellbeing was promoted or they were unsure; an additional 9 reported that staff wellbeing was promoted.

Some staff commented that there was preferential treatment for certain team members and that communication could be improved.