The Acocks Green 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, 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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion. They treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

National patient survey highlighted that the practice was rated significantly lower than average on areas such as ‘the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at listening to them’, scoring 73% against a national average of 87%. People were asked if they had confidence and trust in the professional they last saw and 77% said yes against a national average of 92%. The provider was aware of the findings and had an improvement plan which included reviewing how staff interacted with people and feedback on patient satisfaction and we saw results of the providers own surveys and feedback that were generally positive. People told us that they were respected and treated well by staff in the service.

Staff we spoke with understood Gillick competency and 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.

There was a separate room in the practice for people to speak privately to staff members should they wish to. People we spoke with on the day of the site visit told us they felt respected and treated with kindness from all staff at Acocks Green Medical Centre.

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.

The staff understood people’ personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs and how they could be supported. An interpreter service was available and some staff members were able to communicate in different languages. However, signage informing people about the availability of an interpreting service was displayed only in English. This posed a potential barrier for people whose first language was not English and may limit their access to support. The provider acknowledged this feedback and told us they would conduct a review of signage to ensure signage was clear, consistent, and accessible, helping people navigate the service easily and reducing barriers to access.

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 people and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services. They employed a social prescriber to support people with non-clinical matters. The National GP Patient Survey data showed that people were involved as much as they wished to be in health decisions. This was in line with the national average.

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.

We saw that there were some posters in the waiting room in English that informed people of the appointment system as well as providing information on interpreter services. However, there was no signposting to various services such as bereavement, debt advice and carers rights. The provider told us, and we saw, that the reception area was very small so there was very little space to display literature, so they would attempt to use the displays better in order to satisfy patient needs which reduces risk. 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. Some people told us it was difficult to fill in the online request however; they had the option to call the surgery or come into reception to get help fill in the form.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. The leaders supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they were valued by leaders. They said they felt happy at work and the team supported each other, they described an environment where they felt safe to speak up and were respected as an equal member of the team. Staff told us that they had access to information and support on a range of well-being subjects and external services. They also received appropriate supervision and oversight.