Olive 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 has changed to requires improvement.

This service scored 55 (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 did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. They did not always listen to concerns about safety and did not always investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The practice had a significant events policy. This gave examples of what should be recorded as significant events, including new cancer diagnoses, and events that had resulted in a complaint. None of these examples had been recorded as significant events. The policy did not state who was responsible for any aspect of significant event reporting. There was no system to monitor significant events to say how many there had been, at what stage any investigation was at or if any themes had been identified. The practice worked closely with a practice in a neighbouring area. Significant events for both practices were kept and dealt with together so there was no insight into what issues were specific to this practice.

We reviewed 4 significant events forms. These did not contain enough information to determine exactly what had happened, what action had been taken or was required, or if learning had been shared and embedded. For example, an incident about a needlestick injury did not make it clear who had been injured, or what the advice from Occupational Health had been, and an incident about a cold chain breach did not indicate what the result of the investigation was. One significant event had not identified a possible data breach as a result of an error. In addition, we were told about a serious incident in the practice a month prior to our assessment. Although this had been discussed in a meeting of the GP partners, no significant event form had been completed and there was no monitoring of actions that were required to stop the incident being repeated.

Significant events were discussed at the partners’ meetings, but minutes did not clearly indicate outcomes. Some staff, including clinicians, told us they were not invited to meetings where significant events were discussed. The practice manager told us they were informed about them if they were directly involved. We reviewed minutes of administrative and reception meetings from November 2024. No significant events had been discussed.

The practice usually 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 abilities, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Patient communication needs were usually met to enable them to be fully involved in their care, but results from the National GP Patient Survey were below average. Results from the National GP Patient Survey indicated that 77% of patients felt the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment, compared to 87% nationally and 88% locally. 63% of patients felt the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at considering their mental wellbeing during their last general practice appointment, compared with 75% nationally and 74% locally.

The practice promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. The practice manager told us there was no hearing loop at the practice, but staff could text patients, and staff would speak slowly if a patient was deaf to allow lip reading. British Sign Language interpreters were used if required. The result of the National GP Patient Survey showed that 85% of respondents felt that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment, compared with 91% nationally and locally. There was a range of appropriate equipment to support and maximise people’s independence and outcomes from care and treatment. Staff helped people and their carers to access community and advocacy services.

The practice usually listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Members of the team had been provided with training in basic life support and the signs and symptoms of sepsis. Staff had a list of ailments where patients should be referred to Accident and Emergency, or to a pharmacy. GPs made decisions about which patients should be seen urgently. Staff knew the process for referral to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams. The results of the GP National Patient Survey showed below average levels of patient satisfaction with patients having their immediate needs met. Results indicated that 67% of patients felt that they knew what the next step would be after contacting the practice, compared to 83% nationally and locally.

The practice cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. Staff were mainly positive about working at the practice. Most felt valued and supported by colleagues and leaders. Leaders recognised and met the wellbeing needs of staff, which included the necessary resources and facilities for safe working, such as regular breaks and rest areas. However, we saw a serious incident had recently occurred at the practice. Although this had been discussed, a significant event had not been raised and there was no formal plan protect staff members and stop the incident being repeated. Staff had the opportunity to provide feedback, raise concerns and suggest ways to improve the service of staff experience during staff meetings.

The practice had a zero tolerance policy on its website. This had been due for review in 2021.