Harris Memorial 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

Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion. Feedback from patients was positive about the way staff treated people They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had a choice in their care and treatment. The practice supported staff wellbeing. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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.

Prior to this assessment, some people told us they had experienced rudeness from reception staff making it harder for them to access medical care and treatment to meet their needs. However, responders to the GP survey and friends and family feedback found reception and administration staff helpful. During the on-site assessment, we observed staff were helpful, polite and kind to patients on the telephone and those attending the service. Staff were aware of the needs of the patient population and were able to offer a holistic approach to support them. Staff displayed understanding and a non-judgemental attitude towards people. Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social, and religious needs of people. Staff told us they gave people appropriate and timely information to understand their care, treatment, or condition.

Staff told us they gave people time and space to explain their symptoms and offered treatment in a person-centred way. People’s personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were understood and met. People’s records were personal, and wishes were recorded on their care record. There was a process to share electronic care records with other local health and care professionals where required. The practice carried out its own survey, including, a friends and family survey sent to people following an appointment. The practice monitored this for reoccurring themes and acted depending on the nature of the concern. While some people had commented that access could be challenging, the service had developed their systems for triaging and prioritising patients.

Staff had completed training to support and promote independence. Staff told us they gave people information and supported them to make informed choices. Staff respected the choices and decisions people made. The service displayed posters and leaflets containing information to support people to make healthier choices. The practice website detailed how to access information in alternative formats (such as large print, easy read, audio recording or braille) or if an interpreter or advocate was required. The service has disabled access and hearing loops.

There was a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. Staff carried out reviews and monitoring for people and altered their medicines to meet their changing needs. Leaders told us they regularly reviewed staffing to ensure there were enough clinicians to meet the needs of people. Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams.

Staff were positive about working at the service. They felt supported by colleagues and leaders both professionally and personally. Leaders were conscious of staff wellbeing. Team meetings gave staff the opportunity to raise concerns.