Head Office

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 a total of 5 quality statements from this key question. Our rating for this key question is good. We found staff displayed a caring and non-judgmental approach towards patients. Patient feedback was collected by the provider and used to develop the service. Patients and their representatives were involved in decisions about care. The wellbeing of staff was supported through regular appraisals and career development opportunities.

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.

The provider carried out their own surveys on patients and provided us with data from September 2024. Patients were asked if they were treated with dignity and respect. The response options were “Very Good”, “Good”, “Neutral”, “Poor” or “Very Poor.” Patients mostly responded positively to this question as 96% (of 209 patients) responded “Very Good” or “Good”.

Staff understood patients’ personal, cultural, social and religious needs. They displayed an understanding and non-judgmental attitude to all patients. The service gave patients timely support and information.

During our assessment, we had only limited opportunity to directly observe staff with patients on a face-to-face basis. However, we observed that staff were courteous and helpful.

We reviewed survey results completed by the provider. Comments from patients showed people were treated with respect and had their individual needs met.

The service had policies and procedures in place to support individualised care. Staff at the service had undertaken training to ensure that they could provide the best service possible to patients.

Interpretation services were available for patients who did not have English as a first language. For patients with learning disabilities or complex social needs family, carers or social workers were appropriately involved.

Treatment was explained to patients and, where appropriate, their families so that patients could make informed decisions about the care received.

The service provided extended access to patients who were patients at all of the GP practices in Bexley. Staff told us that patients might be directed to any of the services by their home GP. Staff helped patients be involved in decisions about their care, and communicated with patients in a way that they could understand. Staff involved patients and, where relevant, family members in care pathways.

Interpretation services were available for patients who did not have English as a first language. For patients who may not have capacity to make decisions, family members and other clinicians in the community were involved as appropriate.

We had no concerns about people’s experience of having the immediate needs responded to.

Staff and leaders at the service told us that they would listen to, and wherever possible, meet the needs of patients in order to minimise discomfort, concern and distress.

Staff told us they were supported by managers and leaders at the service. They told us that the service was responsive to feedback in developing the service.

The service had policies and procedures in place to support staff in their work. This included a “zero tolerance” procedure, and lone working, although onsite staff told us that there were always at least 2 staff on site. There were processes for providing all staff with the development they need. This included appraisal and career development conversations. All staff had received regular annual appraisals in the last year. Staff were supported to meet the requirements of professional revalidation where necessary.