South Grange Medical Group Practice Also known as South Grange Medical Centre

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 service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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 provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The National GP Patient Survey showed 96%of respondentssaid they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment, above the national of 91%.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. These were regularly reviewed and discussions with family documented. Our review of records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs, and in decisions about their care.Clinicians told us they promoted shared decision-making during consultations.

The provider understood the health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Services were adapted to meet local deprivation need, including access to mental health and substance misuse services. In the latest National GP Patient Survey, 85% of respondents said they have had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses, above the local average of 72% and the national average of 69%.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population, including various charities.

Our review of the clinical system demonstrated that referrals to other services were made promptly, and information shared by other services was managed effectively and in a timely manner to support good outcomes for people. The provider worked closely with the Primary Care Network (PCN) with a view to improving patient outcomes.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information provided by the practice met the Accessible Information Standard. Individual communication needs were noted on the patient’s record. Staff told us they supported patients with using online services, as many faced digital barriers. Leaflets were available in the reception area and posters were displayed to provide patients with information on the practice and the different services available to them. Patients were also provided with information on how to access their medical records, or for others on their behalf.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There was a complaints process in place, which included a designated complaints lead and a policy. Information on how to make a complaint or suggestion was available on the practice's website. Staff showed a good awareness of complaints procedures. Themes were analysed and shared with all staff, along with changes implemented and learning points identified. Named members of staff monitored complaints progress and escalated where necessary.

We reviewed several complaints and found they were actioned in line with their policy. Where appropriate, patients were provided with an apology and signposted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The practice held regular reviews and discussions of complaints which looked at learning points, changes made and other planned actions.

The latest National GP Patient Survey data showed patients reported positive experiences of accessing their GP practice. For instance, 85 %of respondents described their overall experience of contacting this GP practice as good, above the national average of 70 %. Seventy-six per cent of respondentsfound it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone, above national average of 53%. Seventy-five per centof respondentsfound it easy to contact this GP practice using their website, exceeding the local and national averages of 53%and 51%. Ninety-five per cent found the reception and administrative team helpful, above the local average of 86% and the national average of 83%. When booking, 71% of patients were offered a choice of time or day when they last tried to make a general practice appointment, above the local average of 59% and the national average of 54%.

Out of 375 friends and family test responses received by the practice in January 2026, 96% described their experience as good or very good.

A mixture of urgent same day, or pre-bookable appointments were available, either through telephoning, the NHS app or online. The provider also navigated patients externally as appropriate, such as to pharmacists or first contact physiotherapists.

Patients could choose whether to attend at South Grange Medical Group Practice or at Coatham Surgery in Redcar, a practice which shared some of the same management team and who the provider worked collaboratively with.

The practice received regular management reports from their telephony system which were kept under review, allowing them to match staff to peaks in demand. Patients were offered a callback service to save waiting. Telephony reports showed the average wait time on the phone was short, and those patients wishing to receive a call back got one.

We checked the appointment system on the days around the inspection and in the afternoon, there were still GP and other clinical appointments available for the remainder of the day, showing the provider was meeting demand well.

Enhanced access appointments were provided between 6.30-8pm each weekday and 9am - 5pm on Saturdays.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.Leaders and staff worked to prevent discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage distinct groups of people using their services. They proactively sought out ways to address barriers to improve people’s experience and acted on information about people's experiences and outcomes.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Factsheets were available on the practice website in a large number of different languages. Patients could fill registration forms in online.

Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the practice, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.Results were shared regularly at staff meetings. The website for the practice had a translate function embedded in it. The practice was a veteran accredited practice.

People were 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.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) orders. This information was shared with other services when necessary.Regular clinical and multi-disciplinary meetings with care partners were held.