Grove Park 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

We assessed all the quality statements from this key question. Our rating for this key question is good. We found the practice was providing a caring service overall. However, we identified some areas for improvement in relation to people’s experience and interactions with staff.

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.

People’s feedback was mixed. Several people told us that they were not listened to and felt dismissed by the clinicians, others were satisfied with their interactions. Most people told us that the reception staff were helpful and supportive. People said there was no privacy for people when talking with staff at the reception as the waiting area did not allow for this. They said ways of contacting the practice had deteriorated since the practice had implemented the online system without consideration for all people using the service.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the needs of the local population, Staff told us they gave people appropriate and timely information to understand their care, treatment, or condition.

The reception area did not provide confidentiality. A private room was available if people were distressed or wanted to speak to staff in confidence. However, feedback demonstrated that some people were not happy with these arrangements. Particularly those who required support from reception staff to fill out the online form.

Some people told us they were treated as individuals and respectfully by staff. However, other people said they were often dismissed by staff and treated without dignity and respect. They told us that sometimes there was a lack of follow up of progress with their health conditions.

Staff told us they gave people time and space to explain their symptoms and offered person-centred treatment. Staff told us how they respected the personal, cultural, social, and religious needs of people. Leaders told us they were devising new surveys to better understand and meet the individual needs of people using the service.

People’s medical records were personalised, and care and treatment was person-centred. People’s wishes were recorded on their care record. There was a process in place to share these records with other local healthcare professionals. The practice had introduced a streamlined recall system for people with multiple chronic conditions. This process involved minimising the number of appointments for people and providing care and treatment in a more holistic way.

We did not receive any specific feedback from people relating to independence, choice and control.

Staff encouraged people to make choices and remain in control of their care and treatment. Staff respected the choices and decisions people made.

People could access information in the practice and on the website to support them to make healthier choices. There was a range of leaflets available at the surgeries to support people’s health such as an activity program for people over 60 to stay healthy and fit. The practice in partnership with a local health service provided sessions to people to support their independence. These sessions included health coaching for the 24 to 55 age group, smoking cessation clinics, chair-based exercises for frail people, and a memory café for people with neurological issues.

People we spoke to told us that sometimes they experienced difficulties accessing appointments and seeing a GP of choice. They felt that the new online consultation service was difficult to navigate. Some people told us that they did not feel listened to about their symptoms. During a PCN survey conducted in October 2024, fifty-six respondents said they did not know how to use the online system but would if training was provided, and 13 respondents said they did not have access to digital technology.

Leaders told us they regularly reviewed staffing to ensure there were enough clinicians to meet the needs of people. Staff carried out reviews and monitoring for people and altered their medicines to meet their changing needs.

Staff told us they were supported by leaders and could approach them for advice, guidance or to raise concerns. Staff were supported with professional development and career progression.

Regular staff meetings supported staff wellbeing. Annual appraisals provided staff with the opportunity to raise any concerns with their wellbeing. Staff surveys were carried out and actions recorded such as promoting access to employee assistance programs and staff newsletters.