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

This service scored 71 (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 said it was difficult to get an appointment, and most times they did not get to see the same GP for continuity of care. People said there was a lack of information provided about what their current situation was and what they should do about their enquiries and health follow ups. People had felt dismissed by the clinicians about the symptoms they experienced. People were unhappy with their experiences and outcomes. However, other people were more positive about receiving person-centred care and said that staff were very supportive.

Staff told us how they treated people as individuals and with respect. They told us they got to know people and their needs during regular appointments, and they responded appropriately. Staff told us they provided personalised care to older people through tailored care plans. They also provided a streamlined process for people with multiple chronic conditions to deliver more person-centred care.

Staff told us that care provision extended to a wider primary care network (PCN) team of healthcare professionals. There was a good mix of healthcare professionals to meet people’s needs.

Partners told us the service had a consistent presence at local multidisciplinary meetings in the community. They told us this was a valuable way to share information to understand the diverse health and care needs of the people in the community to ensure care is joined-up.

The service considered the importance of flexibility, informed choice and continuity of care when delivering care and treatment. Systems and processes were in place to support people with a multidisciplinary approach.

Some people reported they did not always know what the next step would be after contacting the service. They said more information was required to understand how to use the online booking system. People told us there was a lack of information provided to them about the current situation with their treatments and how they should get a response to their queries and follow ups. However, other people were more positive in relation to this.

Staff told us they provided people with information in a way that helped them to understand their health needs, and any advice given. They also supported people and their carers when needed to find further information and access community and advocacy services.

There was a system in place for staff to access interpretation services to support people who did not have English as a first language. Reasonable adjustments were in place for people with mobility needs. 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.

Some people reported they did feel encouraged and enabled to feedback about their care and treatment. However, other people told us they felt engaged with the practice. Some people felt they were not listened to by staff.

Staff were able to explain the importance of listening to people during their appointment to establish their needs. They told us complaints were reviewed regularly, and learning was shared in team meetings. Since the merger, there had been challenges for both staff and people in relation to engaging with one another regarding the direction of the practice. Staff told us they had established a new PPG, and they were disbanding the previous PPG. They told us the new PPG was a virtual patient group that was open to all people who wished to join and engage with the practice. People could also apply to be a part of a committee. The committee was working with the managers on a whole practice survey and co-designed action plan. The practice told us they also engaged with people through a practice newsletter.

The practice gathered people’s views through the website, text messages, NHS Friends and Family Test, PPG and internal surveys. Internal surveys were focused, for example on people’s satisfaction with the online booking system and the evaluation of chair-based exercise activities. We saw evidence that data was analysed, and action plans drawn up in response to survey results.

Several people reported that the online system for accessing care and treatment did not work for them particularly for older people and those digitally excluded. People told us the system was complicated with numerous fields of questions to answer before they could access an appointment and that the options available did not always match the symptoms presented by the person or the conditions they had. People told us it was difficult to get an appointment and most times they did not get to see a doctor. They were also dissatisfied with the time it took for reception to answer the telephone. However, feedback was mixed as other people said they were satisfied with the online system and appointments were prompt. Results from the Primary Care Network (PCN) access survey conducted in October 2024 were mixed in relation to satisfaction with the ease of contacting the surgery during the opening hours. The results showed that from 1,531 respondents, 656 either agreed or strongly agreed, 544 either disagreed or strongly disagreed and 331 were neutral.

Leaders explained how they understood the needs of the local population and had developed the service in response. They told us there was a high level of satisfaction with the online booking system amongst working age people, which was 68% of all people registered. Leaders said they understood the challenges for older people and others who were digitally excluded. They told us these groups could phone or attend in person where staff would fill out the online form on their behalf.

Since the merger, the practice had implemented a digital hub for people with acute needs. People needing an appointment must fill out an online form. For people with no digital access, they must either phone reception or attend reception in person where staff will transcribe the request for them. GPs man the hub on a rota basis and assess and prioritise patients based on clinical need. The practice had also implemented a streamlined recall system for people with long-term conditions with an aim to improve access and make it more equitable for all. The practice had agreed on an action plan with the Patient Participation Group (PPG) to support older people access online services. The practice had also started a community action project with their medical students to support older people to use online access or alternatives.

We did not receive any specific feedback from people relating to equity in experiences and outcomes in terms of their diverse backgrounds.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances. The practice had identified 341 people with carer responsibilities, and they were signposted to support organisations. Processes were in place to support people in a nursing home and the practice was accredited to support armed force veterans. The practice demonstrated commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion and supported the LGBTQ community. There was a lead GP, and the practice had worked with the pride in practice team to support people registered with the practice, also arrangements were in place to support trans people.

People we spoke to did not raise concerns relating to their future care. They said they were supported to plan for any changes.

Staff told us how they planned for people’s future care including advanced care planning and how they coordinated end of life care. The practice had a policy to support the bereaved and they were signposted to bereavement support services.

People’s care plans documented do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions and families / carers had been involved in decisions where a person lacked capacity to make them alone.