Grosvenor House 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 service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. At our last assessment in August 2022, we rated this key question as requires improvement because people had difficulty accessing services via the telephone in a timely manner.

At this assessment in June 2026, the rating has changed from requires improvement to good because we found some improvement made since the last assessment in August 2022.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care plans did not reflect physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. However, our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information on health services available on the practice website was available in a range of languages and would provide leaflets if requested by the patients. However, there were no posters about other beneficial health information such as sepsis awareness, complaints procedures and cervical screening. The practice had access to interpreting services. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made because of patient feedback, including complaints. However, patients were not always informed of routes of escalation if they were unhappy with how their complaints were handled.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The National GP Patient survey 2025 result showed the service (71%) was in line with the national (70%) and local (71%) averages with patients’ overall experience of contacting the GP practice. The percentage of respondents who found it easy to contact the GP practice on the phone was 48% which was lower than the local (60%) and the national (53%) averages. The percentage of respondents who found it easy to contact the GP practice using their website was 51% which was in line with the local (52%) and the national (51%) averages. However, the percentage of respondents who found it easy to contact the GP practice using the NHS App was 43% which was lower than the local (51%) and national (49%) averages.The premises used by this service were located across 2 floors with patient consultations completed on the ground floor of the building. The hallways and corridors were accessible to wheelchair users and baby prams. There was a plan to renovate the building but approval was yet to be given by the Integrated Care Board (ICB). Patient feedback from experience of care online forms indicated that elderly patients who could not use the internet had difficulty accessing services using the online route that was encouraged by the practice. However, staff informed us that any patients who could not access the online services would be supported on the phone and when they come to the practice. The practice opened Monday to Friday from 8am to 6:30pm. There was information for patients on the practice website on how to access services out of hours when needed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice regardless of their circumstances. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service.

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 not always supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The information was not always available for sharing with other services when necessary.