Grovelands Medical Centre Also known as Dr D.A. Riley & Partners

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

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. They knew how to give feedback and were confident it was taken seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination.

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 service 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.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. The practice contributed to delivering personalised care for people with severe frailty, complex needs and those receiving end of life care. 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 patient survey results from 2025 suggested 95%of the respondents felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment in comparison to the national average of 91%.

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 practice also worked closely with community nursing teams and palliative care services to maintain continuity for people with complex or long‑term conditions.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, the practice held regular multi-disciplinary team meetings with other healthcare professionals; and information about patients’ care and treatment needs was available to share between services as required.

National patient survey results indicated 87% of the respondents felt the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last general practice appointment, in comparison to the national average of 86%.

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

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

A range of health and wellbeing leaflets and posters were on display in the waiting area for patient information.

National patient survey results indicated 94% of the respondentsfelt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment, this was in line with the national average of 92%.

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.

The practice had a complaints policy, and the Practice Manager was the lead for handling complaints. Patients could make a complaint verbally, via the practice website, or by writing to the practice.

The patient survey results from 2025 suggested 93% of the respondents felt the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment in comparison to the national average of 87%.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community, the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. Patient feedback was reviewed regularly to identify themes, concerns and variation in patient experience.

As part of our assessment, CQC received feedback from patients about their experience of the practice. Feedback we received regarding access to the service was positive.

During our assessment, we looked at the practice’s appointment system and could see that patients were able to book appointments that suited their individual needs.Staff told us there was a new patient triage system which enabled patients to have better access to the service. Routine appointments could be booked giving patients more choice in how they access services.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.

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.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations to address any local health inequalities.

The practice Friends and Family Test (FFT) results were mostly positive with compliments to staff regarding the ease of access to the service. We noted that feedback relating to digital access and appointment booking was acted on to improve patient experience. The practice recognised digital inclusion could impact some patient groups and was working with the PPG to develop patient workshops to increase confidence in using digital access tools and reducing inequalities in access.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

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 end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary. Staff told us they reviewed patient ‘ReSPECT’ forms regularly to ensure these reflected patient’s current wishes. ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment. These forms create personalised recommendations for clinical care in emergency situations where people are not able to make decisions or express their wishes.

Patients receiving palliative care were able to have home visits and care packages to ensure their wishes were followed and carried out in their final stages of life. Clinicians met regularly with District Nurses and the palliative care team to update patient care plans.