St Georges Medical 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

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 meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. The service supported staff wellbeing.

This service scored 80 (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 was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. We observed staff treating people with kindness and respect within the waiting room. Feedback from people who used the service was positive and receptionists, nurses and doctors were frequently described as approachable, kind and patient.

National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. Both indicators were above the national average. For example, 95% of respondents stated that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at treating them with care and concern. This was above the national average of 86%. In addition, 96% of respondent responded positively to the overall experience of their GP practice, significantly above the national average of 74%.

Staff that chaperoned were aware of their responsibilities in maintaining a person’s dignity and safety during an intimate examination. 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.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. People’s communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care. People were asked at registration about their first language and a person’s preferred method of communication was recorded on their electronic record. Additional reminders for appointments were sent to people who may benefit, for example, people living with a learning disability or neurodiversity.

Staff told us how they supported minority and marginalised groups of people for example people from the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, or another diverse gender identity (LGBTQ+) population. Through our conversations with staff, we found that staff consistently shared the same approach, pronouns and preferred name were recorded clearly in the electronic records and people were treated with dignity respect.

National GP Patient Survey data reflected that people felt involved in decisions about their care. For example, 97% of respondents stated that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. This was above to the national average of 91%.

The service had identified 310 people registered with the service as carers which was 2.1% of the practice population. The service has a dedicated carers’ champion who supported this group of people. They attended meetings of Rushcliffe Carer’s Champions, where guidance and good practice was shared.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

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 service had introduced a new telephone system and promoted the use of the online system for appointments and online consultations.

There was a system that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services via the duty doctor. Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support.

Feedback from people who used the service reported positive experiences around urgent cases being accommodated, and technology used effectively for communication.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. Systems were in place to support all staff, including medical students, GP registrars and staff working on behalf of but not directly employed by the service.

Feedback from staff was positive about the support they received from leaders and staff told us they were listened to and were supported when they required additional support. They told us they enjoyed the regular social events with colleagues. Staff had access to an employee assistance scheme.

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. Systems were in place for staff to raise ideas, suggestions, or issues what would be discussed at practice meetings.