Shakespeare Road 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

Caring – This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy.

The National GP Patient Survey (GPPS) 2025 results reflected people felt listened to as well as the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them and treated them with care and concern.

Staff we spoke with understood guidelines on how to judge people’s capacity to consent to medical treatment 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. Feedback from people who used the service and those who are close to them, including stakeholders was continually positive about the way staff treated people.

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.

The service took steps to understand and respond to people’s individual circumstances. Staff recognised people’s needs to have access to, and links with, their advocacy and support networks in the community and they supported people to do this. Reasonable adjustments were in place for those with communication needs, including access to British Sign Language interpreters, hearing loops, and information in large print or braille. People with learning disabilities were supported through annual health checks and easy-read health passports. The practice worked with local community groups and social prescribers to address health inequalities and improve access for vulnerable populations, including ethnic minority groups and military veterans.

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

People were supported to access a wide range of meaningful activities and community opportunities that promoted independence, health, and overall wellbeing. Staff promoted independence and choice by offering flexible appointment options and supporting people to make informed decisions about their care. The practice used personalised care plans and involved patients in shared decision-making, particularly for those with complex needs. During our on-site visit, we observed there was a self-service kiosk blood pressure machine in the waiting area for people to monitor their own health and records. People had access to social prescribing schemes which connected people to community resources. For example, we noted practice, social and financial support programs were available either through self-referral or via the service’s social prescriber. Feedback from people who used these schemes was consistently positive, in relation to the assistance and support provided by the service.

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 to ensure 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 service demonstrated how people were able to access care for their immediate needs, including reasonable adjustments to assist them in this process. For example, vulnerable people had appointments offered with the same clinician where possible for continuity of care and to ensure their complex health needs would be addressed. We also noted children under 5 years old were prioritised during appointment triage to ensure contact was made same day due to the risk of deterioration in symptoms. All information on people’s immediate needs was recorded on the person’s clinical records, so they do not need to be asked or requested on each occasion.

Home visits were arranged for housebound patients and care home residents, with proactive reviews and flu vaccination clinics provided. Staff worked collaboratively with community nursing teams to ensure timely support for people with complex health and social care needs. Feedback we received by external local stakeholder healthcare organisations highlighted there was a multidisciplinary approach in delivering care and support was provided to these services where required.

The service promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and we saw evidence they 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. There were mechanisms in place to support staff in their roles if concerns were raised.

From a review of the staff feedback we received directly to CQC, we saw an improving culture which was more positive and open. The service prioritised on creating a caring and supportive workplace which was noted on the improvement plan. Staff we spoke with reflected positively about the focus on wellbeing and how leaders had improved the workplace values. The service promoted recognition schemes and demonstrated training and development opportunities were available through appraisal processes. Staff had access to human resource (HR) support and wellbeing resources offered by the provider.

Staff were offered an employee assistance program (EAP) through the service’s occupational health service partner and had access to mental health first aiders.