Lister House Surgery - Luton

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 practice involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Requires Improvement. 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 practice always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

The practice had arrangements in place to protect patients’ privacy, dignity and confidentiality. National GP Patient Survey result for July 2026 reflected that patients who responded to the survey felt listened to and were treated with kindness and respect. Results were also lower than expected for indicators relating to confidence and trust in healthcare professionals, involvement in decisions about care and treatment, and whether patients felt listened to and treated with care and concern during appointments.

Patients’ privacy and confidentiality were respected. Private consultation rooms were available and routinely used for sensitive discussions and examinations. Staff explained that confidential information was managed appropriately and only shared with authorised individuals in line with information governance requirements.

There was evidence the practice supported patients to be involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Staff described taking time to explain options, answer questions and ensure patients understood the information provided. This approach helped patients participate fully in decisions and ensured care was delivered in a way that respected their preferences, individual circumstances and cultural needs.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of Gillick competency and Fraser guidelines and recognised the importance of balancing confidentiality with safe care for young people. Appropriate processes were in place to support young people to access confidential healthcare advice and treatment where they were assessed as having the capacity to make their own decisions.

The practice 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 practice treated people as individuals and took account of their personal, cultural, social, religious and equality needs when delivering care and treatment. Staff described how they sought to understand patients' individual circumstances, preferences, strengths and support needs to help ensure care was tailored appropriately.

The practice served a diverse population and had systems in place to identify and respond to patients' communication and accessibility needs. Interpreting services were available, and staff arranged sign language support, accessible information and other reasonable adjustments where required. Staff described adapting their communication methods to help patients understand information about their health and treatment and engage effectively with healthcare professionals.

Clinical records demonstrated that patients' preferences, personal circumstances, communication requirements and wider support networks were considered when planning and delivering care. Care planning reflected patients' physical, mental, emotional and social needs and preferences, and took account of protected characteristics where relevant. This helped ensure care and treatment were personalised and responsive to individual needs.

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

Staff understood the importance of supporting patients to make informed decisions and providing information in a way that enabled them to participate fully in discussions about their health.

Patients who required additional support were offered assistance to access services and navigate care pathways. Staff were able to describe how they helped patients understand available options and access the most appropriate services to meet their needs. Where appropriate, and with patient consent, carers, family members and advocates were involved in discussions to support decision-making and ensure patients' wishes were respected.

Staff helped patients and their carers to access advocacy, social prescribing and community-based services. Patients were routinely signposted or referred to carers' support organisations, community groups and local wellbeing services where these could help maintain independence, reduce social isolation or improve overall wellbeing. The practice also worked with Primary Care Network services and community partners to support patients with wider social, financial and wellbeing needs.

Evidence reviewed demonstrated that the practice took reasonable steps to reduce barriers to care and support people to remain as independent as possible. Through personalised support, reasonable adjustments and signposting to appropriate services, the practice promoted patient choice, autonomy and wellbeing.

The practice 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.

The practice operated a structured Total Triage model supported by clinical oversight and clear governance arrangements. Patient requests submitted online, by telephone or in person were reviewed and prioritised according to clinical need. Staff understood escalation processes and had direct access to duty GPs when immediate clinical input was required. Reception staff described examples where patients presenting with red flag symptoms, including chest pain, suspected sepsis and acute mental health crises, were immediately escalated to a clinician for same-day assessment and appropriate intervention.

The practice demonstrated a strong commitment to equitable access and actively reduced barriers that may have delayed patients receiving care. Staff supported patients who were unable to use digital systems independently by completing online triage requests on their behalf and ensuring alternative access routes remained available. Communication and accessibility needs were routinely recorded within patient records, and interpreting services, sign language support and other reasonable adjustments were arranged promptly when required. Staff described occasions where interpreter services were organised urgently to support patients requiring same-day clinical assessment, ensuring language barriers did not delay treatment.

Staff took a proactive approach to identifying and supporting vulnerable patients. The practice worked closely with care homes, district nursing teams, pharmacists, social prescribers and other multidisciplinary partners to coordinate care for patients with complex needs. Staff gave examples of contacting frail patients and care home residents directly following hospital discharge to ensure medicines had been received, follow-up appointments arranged and any concerns addressed promptly. This helped reduce the risk of deterioration and avoid unnecessary hospital admissions.

The practice served a diverse population and made effective use of interpreting services to help patients understand information, participate in decisions about their care and access services appropriately. Staff were mindful of cultural, language and communication needs and worked to ensure patients felt supported throughout their interactions with the service.

The practice demonstrated a willingness to learn from reviews and adapt services in response to patient need. Following a review of asthma management, opportunities were identified to strengthen follow-up arrangements for patients who had experienced an asthma exacerbation. In response, the practice introduced enhanced recall systems, patient messaging and clinician reminders to encourage timely review. Leaders explained that patients who failed to respond to invitations were followed up through additional contact attempts to minimise the risk of deterioration and support ongoing engagement.

The practice also took proactive action to identify patients who may require urgent intervention. Clinical searches were used to identify patients at increased risk due to overdue monitoring, high-risk medicines or long-term conditions requiring review. For example, searches identified patients requiring thyroid monitoring, enabling clinicians to contact patients and arrange appropriate testing and follow-up before potential harm occurred.

Cancer detection performance was positive and in line with national expectations. Data showed that 56.3% of new cancer diagnoses followed an urgent suspected cancer referral, compared with an expected rate of 53.9%. This demonstrated that clinicians were effective at recognising symptoms that may indicate cancer and making prompt referrals to support earlier diagnosis and treatment.

Feedback from staff demonstrated a culture of listening and responding to patients' needs in the moment. Staff described taking additional steps to support patients who were distressed, vulnerable or experiencing barriers to care, including remaining on the telephone with patients awaiting urgent support, arranging immediate clinician call-backs and working with external agencies to ensure people received appropriate assistance without delay.

Overall, evidence demonstrated that the practice not only responded effectively to people's immediate needs but proactively identified risks, removed barriers to care and adapted services to minimise distress, prevent deterioration and improve outcomes for patients.

The practice 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 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. Staff reported being supported if they were struggling at work. We saw team building days were established within the practice.

The practice fostered a supportive and inclusive culture where staff wellbeing, professional development and empowerment were actively encouraged. Staff told us that leaders were visible, approachable and responsive, and that they felt comfortable seeking advice, raising concerns and contributing ideas for service improvement. Regular communication took place through daily clinical huddles, practice meetings and protected learning sessions, providing opportunities for staff to share experiences, discuss complex cases and learn from one another.

A designated wellbeing lead had been appointed to provide staff with an accessible point of contact for wellbeing support, advice and guidance. Staff were aware of the arrangements in place and told us they felt supported to discuss wellbeing concerns openly. Leaders also promoted a positive working environment through protected breaks, regular team-building activities, supportive management arrangements and access to appropriate resources to help staff maintain their health and wellbeing. This helped create a culture where staff felt valued, supported and able to deliver person-centred care.

There was a strong focus on learning and development. As a training practice, staff benefited from working within a multidisciplinary team that included GPs, GP trainees, nurses, healthcare assistants and pharmacists. This created opportunities for shared learning, supervision and professional support. Staff described having access to experienced colleagues for advice and guidance, helping them maintain their skills, knowledge and confidence within their roles.

An open and positive culture encouraged staff to speak up and share feedback. Freedom to Speak Up arrangements were in place, and staff told us they felt comfortable approaching managers and clinical leaders with concerns or suggestions. Information was shared regularly across the organisation, and systems ensured that staff who were unable to attend meetings remained informed about key developments, learning and practice changes.

Leaders had considered workforce resilience and continuity planning, with arrangements in place to maintain safe staffing levels and minimise disruption to services. Plans also supported the ongoing development of trainees and existing staff members, ensuring learning opportunities continued alongside the delivery of patient care.

Staff described feeling valued, respected and well supported. The culture within the practice promoted learning, collaboration and wellbeing, enabling staff to develop professionally and contribute to the delivery of safe care.