The Southall Medical 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 in January 2015, we rated this key question as good.

At this assessment in July 2026, the rating remains the same because we found no issues with how people were treated with dignity, respect, kindness and how their needs were responded to.

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 mostly treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. There were staff trained to support people who may require chaperone services. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy. National GP Patient Survey 2026 data reflected people did not always feel listened to or treated with kindness. For example, the percentage of respondents who found the reception and administrative team at this practice helpful was 60% which was below the local (83%) and national (85%) averages. Fifty-seven per-cent of the respondents described their overall experience of this GP practice as good was below the local (75%) and national (70%) averages. The percentage of respondents who had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to during the last appointment was 81% which was below the local (91%) and national (92%) averages. Seventy-five percent of the respondents said they healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last appointment which was lower than local (86%) and national (87%) averages.Sixty-seven per-cent of the respondents felt they were treated with care and concern by the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to at the last appointment which was below the local (84%) and national (86%) averages. The provider had not yet gained feedback from the patients to understand the reasons for the low scores above to sufficiently develop an action plan to address the concerns. However, feedback from patients through experience of care online forms showed that people were happy with the service they received. Staff we spoke with understood Gillick competency and Fraser guidelines. People who were considered vulnerable were supported across a multidisciplinary team.

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; interpreting services were available for those who needed them. Staff were multilingual which helped with communication needs of the people using the service. Eighty per cent of the respondents said they were involved as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last appointment compared to the local (91%) and national (92%) averages.

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. Staff could escalate concerns to the clinician on duty when needed.

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 recogniseand 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 completed staff surveys but the analysis of the results was yet to be completed to determine any needed actions because of the feedback from the staff.