Goodcare 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 assessed all 5 of the quality statements from this key question: Kindness, compassion and dignity; treating people as individuals; Independence, choice and control Responding to people’s immediate needs; and Workforce wellbeing and enablement. We found the practice was providing a caring service overall however we identified areas for improvement in relation to people’s experience. The results of the national GP survey were acted upon by the practice who tried to better understand the results as well as make changes to the practice as a result. There were systems and processes to ensure workforce well-being and enablement.

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 national GP Survey carried out from January to March 2024 had 107 responses this found that 66% 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 (national average of 85% and a local average of 83%). Also 67% of patients stated the healthcare professional was fairly or very good at listening to them (national average of 87% and a local average of 85%). In addition, 84% of patients stated they had confidence and trust in the health care professional they saw or spoke to (national average of 92% and a local average of 91%).

Staff knew and understood the people who used their services, including their preferences, wishes, personal histories and backgrounds. Staff and leaders told us they would respond to people’s needs quickly and efficiently. Leaders explained they had recruited staff who were multilingual and who lived locally, to improve patient experience.

Leaders informed us the practice respected patients' religious and cultural beliefs, ensuring completed medical examinations and death certificates were provided to facilitate burials in accordance with family wishes during bereavement.

Documents such as the ‘Referral Protocol’ highlighted the importance of respecting patients’ privacy and dignity. Furthermore, the ‘Quality Assurance and Clinical Audit Policy’ emphasised the necessity for patients to be treated according to what the individual wanted or needed, and with compassion, dignity and respect.

We observed complaints were handled promptly and confidentially. There were arrangements to ensure confidentiality at the reception desk. A private room was available if patients were distressed or wanted to discuss sensitive issues. There was a hearing loop in reception for people with hearing impairment. We saw posters displayed in various languages. The practice maintained a register for carers and offered annual health checks for them.

We observed staff communicating with people with kindness and compassion.

The practice demonstrated a strong commitment to treating people as individuals, ensuring that care, support, and treatment were tailored to meet each person’s unique needs and preferences. The practice took into consideration people’s diverse backgrounds and protected characteristics, which was reflected in the positive feedback from patients who described interactions with reception and nursing staff as professional, caring, and efficient.

The national GP patient survey found 94% of patients stated the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last GP appointment (national average of 92% and a local average of 91%).

Staff at the practice endeavoured to identify any specific requirements patients might have to engage fully in their care. Leaders explained they listened and responded to patient feedback. They monitored friends and family results, the national GP patient survey as well as working with the PPG and undertaking their own patient survey.

We saw an ‘Identify patients needs’ policy. Upon completing the registration form, the information was transferred to the patient record where specific needs were identified. The New Patient Registration Form had a section where patients could alert the practice to any specific needs they may have.

The service website and information leaflets were available in other languages and in other formats. The patient check-in screen was available in other languages.

The national GP patient survey found 47% of respondents were offered a choice of time or day when they last tried to make a general practice appointment (national 53% and local 61%). The survey also found 81% of patients were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment (national 91%, local 89%).

Leaders told us staff provided patients with the information they needed to make decisions about their care and treatment. The information was available in different languages and written formats. Staff told us they helped patients, and their carers find further information and access community and advocacy services.

The Practices’ Safeguarding Adults Policy highlighted safeguarding in a way that supported adults in making choices and having control about how they want to live. In the ‘Shared Decision-Making Policy’, the different choices available to the patients being discussed was a part of the process. The organisation ensured that patient decisions aided and supported conversations and helped patients to make informed choices. Patient information leaflets and notices were available in the patient waiting area which told patients how to access support groups and organisations.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. The results of the national GP survey showed that 89% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment (national average 90% local 89%). In addition 71% of patients knew what the next step would be after contacting the service and 87% knew what the next step would be within two days of contacting the service.

Leaders believed they were satisfying patient needs as they told us they were providing 120 appointments per 1000 patients per week, significantly more appointments than expected (75 per 1000 patients per week).

Staff and leaders told us they provided translation services to accommodate people who required this during their appointments. Guidance sheets for these translation services could be found in appointment rooms.

We collected feedback from staff, we sent out 23 questionnaires and received 18 back. All staff were positive about how management and lead GPs supported them with their wellbeing at work. One staff member told us they felt supported and in a position where they could ask for help from their colleagues if they needed guidance. They stated how compassionate and loving every single staff member was. Staff feedback was that leaders were visible and approachable.

The provider conducted an annual anonymous staff survey, as part of their internal quality assurance process. The survey asked a variety of questions, relating to overall staff satisfaction at the practice, communication from leadership, practice performance, and resource allocation. They received 24 responses out of 33 staff, excluding the GP partners. The feedback was largely positive with over 91% of feedback on all questions either ‘Very satisfied’ or ‘Satisfied’.

In the supplementary comments section of the survey, the feedback received from staff included staffing levels during busy hours. As a result of this, staffing rotas had been analysed and amended to reflect the need for increased staff during periods of high footfall and telephone traffic. The adjustments made ensured that there was now a sufficient staff presence during these times. In addition, the practice was in the process of recruiting more staff, once the refurbishment had finished so there would be space for them.