Gough Walk 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

This is the first assessment for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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 service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy. National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. The GP patient survey 2025 showed 75% of respondents said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last appointment, which was below the local average of 82% and the national average of 87%.

A total of 80% of respondents said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last general practice appointment which was below the local average of 81% and national average of 86%.

Where language barriers existed, interpretation services were available, and longer appointments were offered when needed. There was a process to ensure young adults had control over their own privacy and the amount of parental involvement in managing their care and support.

Staff provided personalised care that met patients’ needs and preferences and considered their abilities, culture, and protected characteristics. Staff used different communication aids and interpreters to enable patients to engage in their care, treatment and support to improve their experience and outcomes.

Carers were identified and supported, with appointment flexibility to accommodate their caring responsibilities. A social prescriber worked in the service weekly and provided valuable non-clinical support.Patients on the learning disability register received extended annual reviews and tailored appointment times. Patient communication needs were met by staff using google translate and language line if they needed to communicate with staff face to face. Staff informed us patients would be offered a chaperone, and we saw notices displayed in waiting and clinical areas to support this. If patients struggled with hearing, a hear loop could be provided.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Staff told us that people were supported to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment and wellbeing. The service supported people to understand their rights by using different ways to communicate.

There were policies and procedures to ensure peoples records were kept up to date with information that supported them to maintain relationships, as well as networks that were important to them. Staff helped patients and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services. The service social prescriber worked closely with patients in this area.

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 national GP patient survey carried out from January to March 2025 had 109 responses. This found 73% of patients knew what the next step would be after contacting the service and 85% knew what the next step would be within two days of contacting the service. In addition, 87% stated to some extent or definitely their needs were met during their last GP appointment. These results were all below the local and national averages.

A triage system helped to ensure timely access for those with urgent needs. Staff were familiar with referral pathways, including mental health crisis support. If patients came into the service to ask for an appointment, staff told us they would support the patient with their request.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. 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, rest areas, and flexible working. Staff reported that leaders provided a working environment where they felt comfortable and empowered to provide a high-quality service to the community. Staff told us they had regular opportunities to provide feedback, raise concerns and suggest ways to improve the service. This was carried out through staff surveys, team meetings and one to ones. Staff reported being supported if they were struggling at work. We saw evidence during the last 12 months where leaders had provided informal team building breaks where staff could connect and feel supported.