Grove Park Surgery

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We assessed all the quality statements from this key question. Our rating for this key question is good. We found the practice was providing an effective service overall. However, we identified some areas for improvement in relation to people’s experience of receiving effective care.

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.

Some people reported that the online form to request an appointment was not practical at all, and more so for people who were digitally excluded and older people. They said the system used by the practice was complicated. There were numerous fields of questions to answer before you could book an appointment and the options available did not match the symptoms presented by the person or the conditions they had. Some people reported that they felt rushed during the GP appointment and that the GPs did not have time to read their notes before their appointment. However, other people told us their needs were adequately met.

Staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Staff entered digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator. Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews.

Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber. Our clinical searches identified one person with a potential missed diagnosis of diabetes. After we made them aware, the provider reported it as a safety incident and took steps to review the person.

Some people told us they did not get sufficient information and advice about their health, care and support. However, other people said they were satisfied in relation to this. They found the GPs supportive and competent.

Clinical staff told us they kept up to date with current evidence-based guidance and gave examples of recent updates they had implemented. Staff who were responsible for reviews of people with long-term conditions told us they had undertaken specific training. The practice was a GP training practice and staff said that trainees were involved in discussions and learning around guidance and updates.

Our remote clinical searches showed that the practice had effective processes to ensure care and treatment was delivered in line with evidence-based practice and legislation. We saw evidence that guidance and updates were discussed in clinical meetings.

People did not raise concerns about how staff, teams and services work together.

Staff told us they worked effectively as a team and enjoyed coming to work. They were aware of the value of working across services and sharing knowledge and experiences to get the best outcomes for people. Staff told us how they worked with external healthcare professionals to provide effective care to people.

Visiting healthcare professionals in the service did not raise any issues about how the service interacted with them.

Regular meetings were held between the service and other health and social care services to ensure continuity of care. Care was delivered and reviewed in a coordinated way when different teams, services or organisations were involved. Social prescribers referred people to services in their local community.

Several people told us that annual health checks for their conditions were overdue. Other people told us that they were supported with their health and wellbeing.

Staff told us they supported people to manage and monitor their own health. Staff told us they discussed changes to care or treatment with people and their carers.

The practice had systems in place for the recall of people for learning disability checks, cervical cancer screening and childhood immunisations. Staff undertook new patient health checks. We saw evidence that in the last 12 months the practice had undertaken 40 learning disability checks out of 53 eligible people. The practice had identified the challenges to improve cervical cancer uptake and there was evidence of an action plan to address them. Likewise, the practice had identified the challenges to improve childhood immunisation uptake and there was evidence of an action plan to address them. There was a range of leaflets available at the surgeries to support patient health such as an activity program for people over 60 to stay healthy and fit and smoking cessation clinics were held at a branch surgery.

Several people told us that annual health checks for their conditions were overdue and there was a lack of monitoring. However, other people told us they were satisfied with their health outcomes.

Staff told us they carried out reviews of people’s health conditions at regular intervals to ensure positive outcomes.

The practice used IT systems to monitor people’s outcomes across a range of performance indicators. We saw evidence of a rolling programme of audits. These included audits of clinical coding, clinical supervision of non-medical prescribers, health & safety, minor surgery, cervical smears, significant events and complaints. The practice kept a log of quality improvement activity undertaken and monitored progress. Quality improvement exercises included work to identify and support more people with carer responsibilities, work to improve clinical coding, better management of frequent attenders and people with chronic conditions.

Data generated by the practice’s IT system demonstrated positive outcomes for people. For example, data showed reductions in frequent attenders to urgent treatment centres, increased identification of health conditions across the disease registers, and reductions in phone line usage since the implementation of the digital hub. Published data sets we reviewed from April to June 2024 showed that accident and emergency attendances were comparable to England averages. Prescribing data for April to June 2024 showed performance was in line or better than England averages.

People did not raise concerns about consent to care and treatment.

Staff we spoke to could explain how they spoke to people and gained consent. Clinical staff understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making.

Policies, protocols, and guidance were in place to support people to consent to care and treatment. Clinicians supported people to make decisions. Where appropriate, they assessed and recorded a person’s mental capacity to make a decision within the medical record. Staff had undertaken Mental Capacity Act 2005 training.