Petroc Group 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

Some patients told us that there were not always treated with respect and empathy that they expected from the service. The practice was in the process of recruiting a relationship manager to build better relationships with patients. The post holder would have the responsibility for dealing with complaints. The practice aimed at ensuring individuals' privacy and preferences in the care and treatment were respected and acted upon. However, more improvement was needed to ensure patients involvement in the process of planning their care and treatment. There was evidence of patients being provided with advice so that they could make choices about their care and treatment where possible. The practice cared about and promoted the wellbeing of its staff and provided them with support needed to perform well in their job.

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.

Data for the national GP survey 2024 showed a total of 76% 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 compared with the national result of 85%.

We received mixed feedback from patients about staff attitude towards them. Some described staff behaviour as unpleasant, rushed and lacking empathy, others said the staff had been helpful, thorough and caring.

Staff had been trained to chaperone and understood their role in supporting patients. Staff said they cared about patients, treated them with respect, aimed to provide holistic care and involving patients in their care and treatment. Practical steps were taken to ensure patients’ privacy and dignity, including closing consulting room doors, pulling curtains across and considering if the patient required a chaperone.

We saw Chaperone notices were displayed in consulting rooms and the waiting area. Arrangements could be made to see a patient if they did not wish to speak with a receptionist in the waiting area.

Consultations were held in private with doors closed and there were areas in consulting rooms that could be curtained off to enable more privacy.

The results of GP patient survey 2024, showed 79% of respondents felt that they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment, compared to the national average of 91%.

.

Staff had a good understanding of individual needs of patients and were able to describe some adjustments made by the service to support these needs. The social prescribing team worked across the network and supported individual patients to have access to information, services, training and projects that they found to be relevant to their needs. Some of these included a six week course on bereavement, counselling, support with finances, housing, children and relationships. Support also was provided to patients with long term conditions, in particular people with pre-diabetes or diabetes, to improve or better manage their health condition. Patients were called into consultations by clinicians using their preferred name. Staff said they adjusted the length of time allocated to consultations based on the patient’s needs. Patients who could not fill in a Klinik form online, received a call back by a member of staff who would work through the form with them.

The practice had systems and processes in place to support the accessibility of the service to patients. There were evening clinics run for cervical cancer screening and children immunisation for people who worked and could not access the service during the working hours. There was provision in place to support people who could not fill in a Klinik form online involving support by a member of staff or use of simple form available at the reception. There was personalised health and social support provided to people through a social prescribing programme. People’s preferences were respected. For example, the use of a patient’s preferred name when called into the consultation room and ensuring a patient can be accompanied by a friend or family member if that is their preference. There were aids and adaptations in place to support people with disabilities to access the service. This included the building being accessible and access to a wheelchair and portable induction loop. Practice meetings, multi-disciplinary team meetings and cross organisational working, helped support patients with a variety of vulnerability and complex needs. Staff were required to undertake specific mandatory training such as equality and diversity to improve their understanding and knowledge of how best to support different patients. The practice was in the process of recruiting a relationship manager to build better relationships with patients. The post holder would have the responsibility for dealing with complaints.

The data from GP Patient survey 2024 showed, comparing to national average results, patients had less control and choice in seeing or speaking to their preferred healthcare professional, and in choosing the location and the time of the appointment they were offered.

Staff supported patients to access a volunteer led friendship group at Oasis café. A social prescriber attended monthly to help signpost patients to other organisation such as Age UK, Bereavement services and dementia care services.

Care navigators worked closely with the social prescribing team to support people’s independence through various programme including access to health coaching support with lifestyle choices and in making necessary referrals and signposting to other services such as food banks, housing, finances and benefit agencies.

There were systems and processes in place for referral of patients to various services in the community to support improved health and general well-being. This included referrals to services such as social prescribing and specialist services for people with learning disability, mental health and long term conditions.

Some patients told us that they did not always receive the immediate care and treatment when needed. The practice’s complaint records showed patients did not always receive correct diagnosis and timely referral to secondary care when needed. The practice had flag these up as significant events and had taken actions to minimise recurrence. A patient told us about the need for privacy when patients had to discuss their health care needs with reception staff.

Staff told us on the day appointment slots were made available for patients who needed urgent appointments. All calls and online requests were triaged and passed to relevant team or person such as a GP or urgent care navigator who acted on the request. Staff said the size of the premises and capacity for rooms was an issue, and at times appointments had been booked, but there were no room available to see patients. There were also issues with staff availability and limited numbers of bank and agency nurses. Therefore, priority was given to cases of patients with urgent need on the day. Emergency appointments were colour coded to indicate priority.

Staff had protected time for checking emergency medicines. The practice was using a new method called State of Play to use information and data to look at appointment types offered, skill mix and patients' demand management. There was a programme of mandatory training for staff to complete, including sepsis awareness. There were meetings to discuss people’s complaints.

Staff told us patients were offered care and treatment that suited their needs, for example if a chaperone, interpreter service, or pop ups for deaf patients were needed, this was arranged. Patients could choose to be accompanied by a friend or relative if preferred and staff ensured doors to the consultation rooms were shut and curtains were pulled across to ensure privacy for the patients.

Staff told us they worked as part of a team and felt supported by the management. Staff said they received training and supervision, enabling them to deliver good care to the patients. Staff attended meetings related to their jobs and when unable to attend meetings, they received updates via emails. Staff had access to policies, procedures and information needed to do their jobs.

There were opportunities for staff to learn new skills and take on more responsibilities.

There were systems and processes in place to support staff and their wellbeing in delivering good care to patients. Staff attended meetings and workshops for sharing information and learning. Examples of these were a resilience training session to manage stress and a workshop on the organisation’s vision and mission statement. The practice had taken part in a recent NHS GP improvement programme aimed at supporting on-going improvement of services delivered to patients. A new manager had been recruited to manage human resources aspects of the service. The practices provided opportunities for staff to get upskilled to take on variety of roles when needed. Staff were encouraged to suggest topics for discussion in the meetings through use of a white board. There were policies and procedures in place to support and guide staff and management in their roles. These included policies related to annual appraisal, Safety Alerts, clinical supervision, whistleblowing, freedom to speak up, recruitment, induction and reasonable adjustments. There was a freedom to speak up guardian.