Grovelands 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 the service met people’s needs, and 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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The practice had a system in place to map peoples needs to the relevant clinician or service at the point of first contact.

The service performed in line with the national average in the results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey. This showed people could access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the service’s website. For example, 77% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to the expected 73%. Seventy-three percent of respondents also responded positively to the overall experience of contacting the practice, which was lower than the expected 77% in response to feedback from people who used the service. Staff had continued to make changes to improve access. This included the increasing use of digital services to make appointments and to signpost patients to other services where appropriate. The telephone lines remained active for those who struggled to use online services. Appointments were also made available at their second surgery if all appointments had been taken for the day. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor at both locations, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance to ensure ease of access to the service.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Feedback provided by people using the service to the provider through the Friends and Family Test and the GP Patient Survey was generally positive. The provider reviewed feedback on a regular basis and looked at ways to improve service following any negative comments. The main areas for patents’ concern was access to services. This was being addressed by the practice who were increasing the way for patients to get in contact with them. Other areas of concern were the waiting times for blood and other diagnostic tests. This was being addressed by the practice providing a limited number of screening procedures to NHS patients in their private diagnostic and screening service. This was a venture for which they were applying for funding to enable all patients to have their screening services “in house”, which would reduce the long waiting times and speed up the patient journey.

The Patient Participation Group (PPG) worked with patients to gather insight into their experience for the practice to improve. The group stated that staff at the practice were open to their comments and they were discussed in meetings. The PPG also worked with the practice to actively engage with the Turkish, Bulgarian and Eastern European communities to provide health information and encourage members of the communities to attend the various vaccination programmes.

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 such as homeless people and travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

The practice had received veteran friendly accreditation. This was in relation to providing services to ex-military staff who may have specialised healthcare needs.

The practice had adopted a neighbourhood health model to care. This aimed to deliver more care closer at the practice, improve access to integrated community-based services and reduce fragmentation between primary, community and secondary care services. They aimed to bring services closer to people using the service and speed up the process between triage, investigation and ongoing health management through the London Diagnostic Centre. This in turn would help support an earlier patient diagnosis to aid in proactive care management.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.