Grove Surgery

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that the practice met people’s needs, and whether patients could easily access services. This is the first inspection for this practice since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as requires improvement. This is because patient feedback demonstrated patients did not find the practice easy to access. The practice was in breach of legal regulation in relation good governance.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice mostly made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. This was demonstrated by the GP national patient survey carried out from January to March 2024 which had 119 responses, 81% of patients had definitely or to some extent confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to. 74% stated their needs were definitely or to some extent met. The patients’ responses for these categories were below the national and local area national averages. The practice had reviewed the patients feedback and looked at ways of making improvements. Longer appointments were available for patients with complex needs and home visit requests were reviewed and action daily. The practice supported 3 residential care homes, we spoke with 2 who stated staff responded promptly to their needs and they had weekly contact with a GP.

The practice understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. For example, patients could be referred to social prescribers. Patients could book appointments online, through the digital hub or by telephone. Longer appointments were offered to those with more complex needs. People in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode such as homeless people and travellers. The practice had recently considered signing up to the Safer Surgeries project in collaboration with Doctors of the World. This was a project that aimed to improve access to healthcare for migrants in vulnerable circumstances, particularly around registration.

The practice mostly supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The GP national patient survey carried out from January to March 2024 had 119 responses. This found 84% of patients stated the health care profession to some extent or definitely had the information they needed about them. The leaders and staff explained how they ensured information was available to as wide an audience as possible. The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard and staff had completed training. There were arrangements in place for people who needed translation services. The practice website was available to as wide an audience as possible and included accessible online tools such as translation and the ability to change font size.

The practice made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The practice had a patient participation forum and reviewed friends and family feedback. The practice had received 6 complaints from January 2024 to present time. We examined a sample of complaints and found all had been managed satisfactorily and in a timely manner. However, we observed a response to a complainant did not contain information for the patient about whom to contact if they were unhappy with the practice response. Information about how to complain was readily available. We saw from meeting minutes that complaints were a standing agenda in clinical and practice team meetings.

The practice did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The GP national patient survey carried out from January to March 2024 had 119 responses. This found 44% of patients had a fairly to very good experience of contacting the practice, 52% found the reception staff fairly to very helpful and 20% found contact through the website fairly to very easy. and 29% of patients found it fairly to very easy to contact the practice by phone. The practice had carried out their own surveys in 2022 and 2023, where they had received 100 patient responses. This found in 2022, and 2023 approximately 26% of patients had a fairly to very good experience of contacting the practice, and in 2023, 43% of patients found it fairly to very easy to contact the practice by phone. The patients’ responses for these categories were below the national and local area national averages. The practice had annually reviewed the GP patient survey and put actions in place to improve the service. In response to these findings the practice had enabled staff to complete customer care and care navigation training and had made changes to the telephone system The practice is open from 8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday, and patients have access to out of hours services in an evening and at weekends. The practice manager explained the practice had recently changed their telephone system to enable patients to have better access.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. Although the national GP survey for 2024 does not request a response from patients who are specifically experiencing inequalities. The results for the patient’s experience of contacting the practice, whether reception staff were helpful and whether contact through the practices website and phone were easy, were all below both the national and local targets. The practice had reviewed some of this data and were considering whether to employ new staff to cover the phone system in peak times, such as mornings, and incorporate more new technology and digital based assistance, and further training for reception staff. The practice offered longer appointments for patients with complex needs and older people and supported nursing and residential homes. Patients who were unable to leave their homes were reviewed opportunistically when they contacted the practice for an appointment. The practice had completed an assessment to check their practice met the accessibility requirements.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. At the time of the assessment, the leaders explained the GPs were in touch with the palliative care team and ensured patients were seen within 3 months and visited when requested. However, the practice did not have a formal visiting system in place for palliative care patients and a review of 3 clinical meetings did not contain any discussion of palliative care patients. We reviewed five patients ‘Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ (DNACPR) decisions and found 3 were not included in the patient’s clinical record and accessible to clinicians who needed them. Most staff had completed mental capacity act and deprivation of liberty training.