During an assessment under our new approach
Date of Assessment: 9 April 2026 to 10 April 2026.
Gnosall Surgery is a GP practice and delivers service to 8382 patients under a Personal Medical Service (PMS) contract held with NHS England. PMS contracts are negotiated and agreed locally by the commissioner with the practice. These contracts are subject to local variations. The National General Practice Profiles states that the practice patient’s ethnicity to be: White, 97.21%, Asian, 0.90%, Mixed, 0.4%, Black, 1.3%, Other, 0.36%. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the decile 9 of 10. The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.
Under our previous methodology at the last inspection in October 2016 , the practice was rated good overall, At this assessment, the rating remains the same.
SAFE: The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers and clinicians investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes. Minor areas for improvement were discussed with the practice during our onsite assessment and prompt action was taken to mitigate risk.
EFFECTIVE: People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity. Our clinical searches identified a small number of areas for improvement which were fully actioned, implemented by the practice and reviewed by our GP Specialist Advisor. The practice had implemented a cervical screening strategy to improve the uptake of cancer screening opportunities.
CARING: People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing. The practice held GP Veteran Friendly Accreditation. Practice staff underwent training to recognise, support, and flag veterans on their systems to ensure, where appropriate they received timely specialist care. The service actively identified and supported carers. The National GP Survey 2025 found patient respondents had reported positively on the care and treatment they received by staff.
RESPONSIVE: People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. The service worked with local Integrated Care Board (ICB) and Public Health teams to align services with wider population health goals. They attended and contributed to multi-agency meetings. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.
WELL-LED: The practice had a well-established, inclusive, and positive learning culture that consistently drove improvements in outcomes for patients and the wider community. Learning was both shared with and gathered from partners to support this. There were clear examples of innovative, supportive and collaborative leadership. This had led to more integrated local providers of care working in partnership with the practice to deliver local services to their rural community to meet their needs. It provided greater sustainability and a stronger focus on meeting people’s needs and addressing inequalities. Governance and management systems helped leaders keep track of risks, performance, and outcomes. Leaders made ongoing efforts to improve how services were delivered, using feedback from staff and patients to reduce risks and enhance care. They also clearly understood and demonstrated their responsibility for maintaining a strong safety culture, which was evident in day-to-day practice.