Saville Medical Group

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 82 (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.

The practice made reasonable adjustmentsto meet individual needs. This included offering longer appointment timesfor patients with complex needs, providing accessible information formats, and ensuring language interpreterswere available when required. A quiet roomwas also available for patients who found busy environments overwhelming. People with Learning disabilities and those living with dementia were supported through flexible appointment arrangements, including home visits, where appropriate, and involvement of carers in care planning.

Leaders told us that staff referred patients to social prescribers where appropriate, to support social, emotional, and practical needs. Patient feedback from social prescribing interventions showed people felt listened to and supported.

The service had an exceptional understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, ensuring care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity, in line with the needs and preferences of different groups, including those at risk of poorer experiences.

This was demonstrated by the way the practice designed its services around local population needs, with integrated care pathways that were adaptable to individual preferences.

The practice took a proactive and innovative approach to improving mental health support for students through its leadership of a multi-agency Student Mental Health Forum, active since 2022. By hosting regular meetings and acting as a central link between universities, NHS teams, therapy providers and voluntary services, the practice improved coordination and reduced barriers to access. It strengthened understanding of referral pathways, supported shared problem-solving for complex cases and reduced the risk of students falling between services. Learning was shared within the team to improve signposting and manage expectations. The forum also influenced wider service development, including proposals for a joint student mental health hub and outreach for vulnerable groups.

The forum benefited the practice’s large student population, estimated at around 10,000 registered students. While individual patient-level data was not collected, agreed service changes were applied across all students requiring mental health support. These included the introduction of routine handover letters from primary care to university wellbeing teams and talking therapy services to support continuity of care, and joint actions with universities to improve student GP registration and deliver a university-wide food allergy safety campaign following a serious incident. The practice also piloted an in-house ketamine misuse clinic in partnership with Newcastle Treatment and Recovery Service (NTaR), which ran from 29 June 2023 to October 2023. The clinic was attended by 8 students and helped break down barriers to engagement with drug and alcohol support, making it easier for students to access help without needing to attend external services.

The practice also partnered with hospital specialists to make liver health checks more accessible. As part of a pilot project with the local hospital, it invited patients at higher risk of liver disease for a scan at the surgery instead of a hospital visit. Over 1,000 scans were completed, with most patients reassured by normal results and others receiving early treatment or monitoring. Patients received same-day results and lifestyle advice, and clear follow-up plans were in place for those needing further care. Feedback was very positive: 92% were satisfied and 90% found it easier to attend their GP surgery than hospital. The success of the pilot led to the service being expanded to other practices and community locations, including a mobile health bus for vulnerable groups. This showed that people’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that exceeded their assessed needs, through coordinated and responsive services that improved access and outcomes.

This demonstrated that people received care and treatment from services that prioritised the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities, particularly students experiencing mental health needs, and that care was coordinated and responsive to address inequalities. These initiatives reflected the practice’s commitment to working in partnership, improving access to care and delivering continuity for patients, while influencing wider service development. The practice prioritised and met the needs of different people, including vulnerable groups and those at risk of poorer experiences of care, by tailoring services and removing barriers to access, and continued to promote support for carers as part of its integrated approach.

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

The practice identified, recorded, and met patients’ communication requirementsin line with the Accessible Information Standards. Communication needs were routinely flagged within patient recordsand highlighted through alertsin the clinical system, enabling staff to respond appropriately and deliver personalised care.

The practice arranged language interpretation servicesfor patients whose first language was not English.

Information was shared through multiple communication channels, including social media, the practice website, noticeboards, and the Patient Participation Group (PPG). The practice also issued a regular fortnightly bulletin for staff to strengthen communication and keep them informed about practice updates and services.

Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey (GPPS)showed that 80% of respondents said they knew what the next steps would be after contacting the practice, which was comparable to the national average of 83%.

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. For example, a clinical complaint was raised when a patient did not receive the expected treatment following an injury. The admin team and manager reviewed the process and contacted local urgent care services to clarify procedures. They developed clear pathways based on the type of injury to prevent recurrence. Learning was incorporated into daily practice and communicated to staff via bulletins. The practice also updated its navigation tool to ensure staff could signpost patients promptly to urgent care for wound assessments and to practice nurses for routine vaccination queries. Additional resources and NHS guidance were highlighted in the weekly staff bulletin to increase awareness.

However, during the assessment, it was noted that there was no visible signage informing patients how to make a complaint. This was promptly addressed by the provider, who placed a sign in the reception area to advise patients of the process.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Extended access appointments were available, supporting patients who required flexibility outside of core hours. People could access the service in a way that suited their needs, including online, in person and by telephone.

Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey (GPPS) showed access was comparable to national benchmarks: 55% of patients said they found it easy to contact the practice by phone (national average 53%) and 43% online (national average 51%).After the site visit, the provider submitted an example of a 1 week activity report from 2025 indicating 100% satisfaction among the patients who used the eConsult service during that period.

The practice removed barriers to care by providing wheelchair-accessible doors, wheelchairs for patient use, automatic doors, and pull cords in toilets for emergency assistance. Saville Place had a chairlift and downstairs clinic rooms for patients with mobility needs. Hearing loops were available at both sites to support patients with hearing difficulties.

Patients with autism or sensory sensitivities could request a quiet space, and a private area was available for confidential conversations.

Access issues were monitored through data on missed appointments (DNAs), safeguarding reviews and patient feedback. Patients who repeatedly missed appointments or prescriptions were discussed in relevant meetings to agree on approaches to improve engagement. For example, when a patient was not attending care or collecting prescriptions, the GP and Social Prescribing Link Worker carried out a home visit and involved the Assessment and Response Team, which provided home visits for non-engaging patients to assess needs and offer additional support.

In addition, staff members had completed care navigation training to help direct patients to the most appropriate service. They were also signposted to community services such as Pharmacy First for minor ailments and quicker treatment. Patients had timely access to urgent care through a daily duty doctor and same-day appointments.

During the assessment it was noted that there was no visible signage informing patients about interpreter services. This was promptly addressed by the provider who placed a sign in reception to raise awareness of the availability of language support.

Staff and leaders actively listened to and responded to the needs of people most likely to experience inequality in their care, experience, or outcomes. Care, support, and treatment were tailored to meet individual circumstances and promote equitable access.

Leaders explained that the practice had a flexible registration procedure to accommodate individuals facing barriers to accessing healthcare services, such as those with no fixed address or asylum seekers. This included accepting alternative forms of identification or proof of address, waiving administrative requirements, and offering support with completing registration forms.

Staff demonstrated an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in patients’ experiences. Interpreters were available to support patients whose first language was not English, helping to ensure effective communication and informed decision-making. Appointment adjustments were made where needed, such as offering longer consultations or scheduling appointments at the end of the day to better suit individual needs.

As a single-practice Primary Care Network (PCN), the practice focused on reducing health inequalities through its Wellbeing Team. In 2024, they identified priority groups, such as people with learning disabilities, older adults, families, young people, and those with long-term conditions or complex mental health needs and provided tailored support. This included practical help with housing and finances, emotional wellbeing sessions, healthy lifestyle programmes, and home visits for those who were isolated or struggling to engage with care.

During 2024, the Wellbeing Team made over 3,000 initial contacts, including 1,025 with older adults, 828 with young people for emotional wellbeing support, and 515 with families and children. Further targeted interventions included 374 contacts for drug and alcohol support and 303 healthy lifestyle interventions. The team also supported vulnerable groups to access routine care, including 175 people with learning disabilities, 263 people with severe mental illness, and 164 people with dementia to attend annual health reviews and receive practical support.

In addition, the practice used clinical coding during wellbeing contacts to identify broader health factors and safeguarding risks at the point of assessment. In 2024, this included coding for financial hardship (72 patients), housing issues (64), adult safeguarding concerns (27), and the need for home visits (36). These codes reflected issues identified within existing wellbeing contacts.

The practice also played a key role in developing and running a Community Health Bus (“Monty”), which brought health services closer to people in their communities. By visiting locations such as supermarkets, places of worship, and other community venues, the bus reached people who might otherwise struggle to access care. It delivered general and liver health checks, vaccinations and health education, providing 1,885 clinical interventions to 249 patients from diverse backgrounds over the past year. Leaders used feedback and local knowledge to shape the services offered, ensuring they addressed barriers and promoted equitable access.

The practice took a proactive and structured approach to supporting patients with dementia and learning disabilities. It offered annual reviews and health checks through systems managed by the social prescribing team in collaboration with GPs. The team contacted patients and carers in their birthday month and arranged flexible appointments, including home visits and reasonable adjustments where needed. Reviews included discussions on social care and signposting to support services, while carers received health advice, flu vaccinations, and referrals for a carers’ needs assessment. The practice team met regularly to review progress, address complex cases, and ensure best practice, with GPs acting as points of contact for staff and liaising with mental health and safeguarding services. All staff received regular updates and completed mandatory training on learning disability and autism. There were 163 eligible patients on the learning disability register; 95 annual health checks were offered during the current financial year, and work was ongoing to ensure the remaining checks were offered and completed.

In addition, the practice was accredited as a Veteran Friendly Practice, which recognised its commitment to providing high-quality, personalised care to military veterans. This included understanding the unique health needs of veterans and ensuring they were supported in accessing appropriate services.

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.