Gnosall 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, 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 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. 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.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service analysed health inequalities data to identify gaps in care for vulnerable groups such as people who experienced homelessness, substance misuse and multiple long-term conditions. The practice was also an armed forces veteran friendly accredited GP service.

We sought feedback from a care home regarding the GP service provided by Gnosall Surgery. We received positive feedback. They valued the service provided and held a professional working relationship.

The practice had developed on site facilities with other providers to meet the needs of its local rural population. In the past this had included discussions with local councils on the public transport bus routes and boundaries to ensure local patient access to the practice.

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 with social care, mental health services, voluntary sector organisations, housing support, and community outreach teams. They contributed to local initiatives such as population health management projects, health inequality audits, and social prescribing schemes.

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

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

As part of the practice’s ongoing strategy 2026 to 2028 the service was exploring integrated interpretation services within their telephone system to improve access for patients whose first language is not English, to ensure equitable communication and support safe and effective care delivery.

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 as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. A complaints procedure was in place to support patients and staff, and this was regularly reviewed.

A complaints log was in place, and we reviewed a sample of complaints received by the practice. We identified a couple of gaps in the complaints handling process, in particular the omission of Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) details in complaint outcome letters. In addition, there was inconsistent documentation of dates and times for actions taken and patient contact, especially in cases where records indicated that the patient was happy or satisfied. The practice evidenced they had actioned this feedback immediately.

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

The service had reviewed and considered access improvement, which had informed the development of the practices triage process with engagement sought from the Patient Participation Group (PPG) and patient and staff feedback. This had led to their access improvement, engagement, and participation strategies which they flexed accordingly. This model went live in 2025 and had received positive feedback from both patients and staff.

We found the service gathered patient feedback via surveys, Friends and Family Test (FFT) results, suggestions, their PPG and digital platforms. Feedback from these forums were reviewed regularly and assisted the formation of their service improvement plan.

The practice had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff had access to policies such as their equality and diversity policy and training. As a rural practice there were a number ofseasonal workers and people on holidays or living on canal boats. The practice reported this could add up to 100 plus patients at certain times of the year. The practice ensured that these patients received access to GP services and that their health was considered in respect of vaccinations, immunisationsand screening programmes.

The National GP Patient Survey results for 2025 of the 295 invites there were 118 respondents, a 40% completion rate. The results found the practice had some higher than local and national patient satisfaction rates, for example:

• 69% of respondentsfind it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone compared with thelocal Integrated Care Service (ICS) result of, 57% and National result of, 53%.
• 63%were offered a choice of time or day when they last tried to make a general practice appointment compared to the ICS result of, 56%and National result of, 54%.
• 85% of respondents describe their experience of contacting their GP practice as good, compared to the local ICS result of, 73% and National result of, 70%.

People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Staff supported people to complete their triage forms, if necessary. There was level access to the practice, reception area had automated doors to assist, had a lift to the first floor and it had disability and general car parking spaces. At the time of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) assessment the practice was reviewing their telephony systems to enhance patient access. This included exploring the introduction of AI-supported reception systems. This was to ascertain whether the service would benefit from any improvement in call handling during peak times, reduced waiting timesand an increase in resilience during staff unplanned and planned absence.

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, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. 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.

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 cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.