East Park Medical 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 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 service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff demonstrated a caring and compassionate approach in their interactions with people using the service. During the assessment, we observed staff treating people with kindness, respect, and dignity, taking time to listen and respond to their needs in a supportive manner. The service maintained appropriate levels of privacy and confidentiality despite the challenges associated with ongoing building works and temporary working arrangements. Measures had been put in place to protect confidential information and ensure consultations and conversations could take place in a private and secure environment.

Feedback from care homes was positive and highlighted that people were treated with respect, dignity, and kindness by practice staff. Care home staff told us that individuals were given sufficient time to discuss their health concerns and did not feel rushed during consultations. Regular face-to-face visits from the practice helped to build trusting relationships and provided reassurance, ensuring people felt safe, valued, and well cared for.

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.

The service demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of its local population and took steps to ensure care was accessible and inclusive. Interpreter services were available for people whose first language was not English, helping to support effective communication and informed decision-making.

During the ongoing building works, information about temporary changes to the premises, including alternative entrances and access arrangements, was clearly signposted. The practice also shared information about local support groups and community resources to help people access additional support when needed, however information was not available in different languages.

Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of the individuals who used the service and were able to explain how care and support were adapted to meet their specific needs and circumstances.

The service did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service promoted a range of local support groups and community resources; however, information was not routinely available in alternative languages. Social prescribing and health and wellbeing support were available through the Primary Care Network (PCN), but there was limited evidence these services were being effectively promoted within the local community. Referral rates to the social prescriber were low, and the premises could not accommodate PCN support sessions, which may have reduced access for people who experienced difficulties with communication or travelling outside their local area.

The service had not recently participated in community-focused events and did not have suitable facilities to host health promotion or information sessions.

The service regularly supported people who found communication in English, both spoken and written, challenging. Staff made effective use of interpreter services, accessing support by telephone or arranging face-to-face interpreters where this was more appropriate to meet an individual's needs. Staff demonstrated how they adapted their approach to ensure people could access care and make informed decisions about their health.

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 offered people a range of ways to access care, including online services and telephone contact. A structured care navigation process, supported by prompts and decision-making tools, was used to help assess the urgency of people's needs and ensure they were directed to the most appropriate service or clinician. People requiring urgent care were able to access same-day appointments when necessary. Staff demonstrated effective communication skills and gathered relevant information to accurately assess needs and determine the level of urgency. Non-clinical staff were supported by clear processes and had access to clinical advice at all times through a duty doctor, enabling them to make informed decisions and ensure people received timely and appropriate care.

Verified National GP Patient Survey results (2026) were positive in relation to access to the service. When asked how easy it was to contact the practice by telephone, 75% of respondents reported a positive experience, which was significantly higher than both the local average of 53% and the national average of 57%.

The service supported staff wellbeing and enabled staff to provide person-centred care.

Staff spoke positively about working at the service and described workloads as manageable. They told us there was a strong sense of teamwork, with colleagues supporting one another to ensure the smooth delivery of care and services. Staff said leaders were approachable, supportive, and available when advice or guidance was needed. Many staff members had worked at the practice for a number of years, which provided stability, continuity and they demonstrated a happiness at work. Staff had access to wellbeing services as well as supportive leadership. The staff were working in a challenging environment due to delayed building work and insufficient current premises, but they had adapted, worked together on solutions and felt respected by leaders.