Parks Surgery Limited Also known as Pennington Park Surgery

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 assessed all quality statements in this key question. People were treated with kindness compassion and dignity. Recent survey results, including from the GP patient survey showed that 78.3% of people that responded were satisfied with services. We were told by patients that they felt they were treated as individuals and the staff responded to their immediate needs in a timely fashion. Members of the patient participation group advised us that they had choice and control over decisions around their care and treatment. Feedback from staff showed us that they had the correct tools and support needed to carry out the roles they were undertaking, the well-being of staff was important to the management team.

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.

When we spoke to members of the patient participation group, they advised us that they felt they were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity in their day-to-day care and support. We were told that they felt listened to by staff and the staff communicated with them appropriately in a way that they could understand. They advised us that the staff responded to their individual needs quickly and efficiently and they felt assured that information about them was being treated in confidence and they felt that staff respected their privacy. The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who stated that during their last GP appointment they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was in line with England averages. The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who stated that the last time they had a general practice appointment, the healthcare professional was good or very good at treating them with care and concern was in line with England averages.

Staff understood the needs of the patient population and were able to provide care and treatment that met people’s needs. Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social, and religious needs of people. The whole practice team worked well together and in way that expressed kindness and compassion to all patients registered with the practice. All staff had completed appropriate mandatory training ensuring that individual needs were understood and met. We looked at the minutes of staff meetings which were held regularly every month. The language within the minutes showed us that patients were discussed with compassion and dignity.

Whilst conducting our onsite inspection we witnessed the staff treating patients over the phone and face to face with dignity and respect. There was a designated room to the side of reception which patients could ask to use if they had something confidential or for sensitive issues they wanted to discuss with a member of staff. Patients were treated with compassion, understanding and kindness. The staff showed empathy where needed and went above and beyond to try and help their patients. We witnessed people’s privacy and dignity being respected and upheld.

When speaking to members of the patient participation group they told us that they felt like they were being treated as individuals by the staff at the practice and that their individual specific needs were being considered by staff. The staff were able to offer extended appointment times if this was needed. The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who stated that the last time they had a general practice appointment, the healthcare professional was good or very good at listening to them was in line with England averages.

The staff told us that they would treat every patient as an individual. They told us each patient has their own specific needs, and they explained how they might approach different individuals based on each person’s individual needs. On speaking to reception staff on the day of the onsite visit they told us that they treated patients the same way they would expect to be treated by their own GP.

The practice had good processes in place to allow the practice staff to work in such a way to support each individual patient’s specific need. Peoples care records were personalised and a pop up would come on to the front screen when accessed by a member of staff if a patient had a specific need which would help support them. The wishes of patients were recorded on the care record and the care record could be shared or accessed via other services, for example by GP Out of Hours Service, if required.

When we spoke to members of the patient participation group, they told us that they felt the practice explained all options available to them to allow them to make an informed choice over the treatment options available to them. They told us that they felt empowered when it came to independence and control.

The staff and leaders told us that if there was more than one treatment option available for patients then each option would be explained in full to allow patients to make informed decisions about their care. Staff fully supported decisions individuals made and always looked for ways in which to support individuals to maintain their independence.

At the time of the assessment the practice had good processes in place to promote patients’ independence and support them to make informed decisions about their care, treatment and wellbeing. They gave patients information and guidance to enable them to make informed decisions about their care.

When we spoke to members of the patient participation group, they told us that they were able to get appointments on the day if they needed one. Patients that responded to the GP Patient survey in the previous 12 months gave an overall positive message when asked how easy it was to speak to someone at the practice.

Staff told us that any patients contacting the practice would receive a call back from a clinician to offer an appointment or to sign post to an alternative care pathway if appropriate. Staff were able to explain to us how people’s needs were prioritised and talked us through the level of training and mentoring they had received to meet the roles and responsibilities of their work.

Staff told us that they felt supported and valued by the leaders at the practice and gave many examples of how this support had been given over the time that they had worked there. There was a break room that was adequate for the purposes it was intended for and there was a poster displaying wellbeing information. The support given to staff enabled them to meet the roles and responsibilities of their work and in turn this helped support the patients registered at the practice. Staff told us there was a strong work ethic within the practice where everyone appeared to support each other. Staff were supported with regular feedback and appraisal reviews and staff told us they felt they could approach the leaders for advice or guidance at any time.

The leaders had the correct processes in place to help support the staff employed at the practice. The leaders worked hard to ensure they had a happy work force and would go above and beyond to support them wherever needed. There was a low turnover in staff and there were good opportunities for staff to work different shifts to help support their needs and choices and lots of support available from a wellbeing perspective.