The Grove 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

This means we looked for evidence the service understood the needs of the people and communities they served and put them at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We looked for evidence people accessed the care and treatment they needed when they needed it.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good.

At this inspection, the rating has remained at good.

People were not always involved in decisions about their care, and some people said they did not feel they were listened to. The service provided information people could understand. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. People were mostly involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice 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. People and where appropriate, family members and carers were involved in care and treatment decisions.

The findings of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed people’s experiences of the practice were mostly positive and were in line with, or slightly better than the local averages.

Clinical staff told us that during consultations they discussed relevant information, listened to people’s concerns and expectations, identified people’s needs and preferences and agreed a plan of care together which suited the person.

People with caring responsibilities were identified and supported. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals so they could access the most appropriate care.

The practice 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 worked in partnership with other organisations to meet the needs of its patient population. This included collaborative work with the primary care network (PCN) to build relationships with local community groups. For example, the practice engaged with faith leaders to support health sessions targeted at Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities and to encourage greater uptake of national screening programmes.

The practice had a good understanding of the needs of the local population and could refer people, or people could self-refer, to a range of services. These included, for example, physiotherapy, wellbeing, sexual health services and Pharmacy First (where people could get clinical advice and treatment from a pharmacist for common minor illnesses).

Leaders had tailored services to meet the diverse needs of their community. This included making an active decision to retain face‑to‑face appointments in response to people’s feedback. The practice also balanced use of digital and online access while ensuring services remained inclusive, recognising that some groups within the local population may experience barriers to using digital platforms.

People were allocated a named GP at the point of registration, although requests for a specific named GP were accommodated if possible. Systems were in place to ensure people were seen by an appropriate clinician, if needed. People could request to see a GP of their choice, although there may have been a longer wait for this.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was available in their reception area and on the practice's website. The practice website contained details on how to make an appointment, and information on the services and resources available.

Information to promote the uptake of screening and immunisation programmes was available. There was a wide selection of health promotion leaflets, including in large print text for those with visual difficulties.

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. For example, there was a hearing loop for people who are deaf or have difficulty hearing. Longer appointments were available to be booked if staff needed to use a translator, for neurodiverse people or people with a learning disability.

People were informed about how to access their care records. The practice was registered as a data controller with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The practice did not always make 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.

Some people who used the service told us they did not know how to raise a complaint and did not feel confident that if they did, their concerns would be addressed.

Information about how to complain was available in the practice’s waiting area and on the practice’s website. However, this lacked detail about the practice’s complaints policy and procedures and what people could expect once they made a complaint. Leaders told us people could make a complaint to the practice by letter, email or by contacting reception.

The practice’s website included information on how people could provide feedback to help improve how the practice operates or delivers its services. However, links to online feedback forms were not available. People were instead directed to the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) feedback form linked to the practice. There were no published results for the practice’s FFT data.

There was a system in place for recording and responding to complaints. The practice had recorded 15 complaints in the 15-month period leading up to this inspection. Complaints were investigated thoroughly, and the practice took action to identify and implement learning to help prevent recurrences. Although complaints were generally responded to in a timely manner, some cases that took longer to investigate did not include evidence of holding correspondence to update the person. This resulted in multiple follow‑up messages from the person seeking progress updates.

The practice did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The practice is open from 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday, and appointments are available daily between 8am and 5pm. In addition, the practice provides 4 evening clinics weekly, including 2 GP clinics from 6.30pm to 8.30pm and 2 nurse clinics from 6.30pm to 8.15pm, and a Saturday clinic once a month from 2pm to 5pm. When the practice is closed, patients are directed to the NHS 111 service or the local urgent care service for support, treatment and advice.

The practice had automatic doors fitted to the entrance, but these were not working on the day of our visit. People told us the doors had been out of order for some time. We observed a person using a mobility aid experiencing difficulty accessing the building. The practice operates from a single-storey purpose-built property, with all treatment rooms and accessible toilets on the same level. There were 2 designated disabled parking spaces.

The results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed 69% of people had a positive experience contacting the practice. This was in line with the national trend, but higher than the local averages. Forty-five percent of people found it easy to contact the practice by phone, and 58% found it easy using their website. These results were higher than the local averages.

People could access the service to suit their needs, for example, online, in person and by telephone. Representatives from the patient participation group (PPG) told us that the triage and appointments process had improved since the introduction of a new system.

People could order their medicines using the online system, which was the preferred way. However, they could also request by phone or in person if they had specific needs, for example older people or those who did not have access to the internet.

Leaders had a good understanding of the local population and told us they reviewed appointment utilisation data to ensure the service met people’s needs. They told us that missed appointment rates were high and influenced by several factors, including people working away from the area, difficulties with phone or online access, and the impact of deprivation and low engagement. In response to these needs, the practice offered more same day appointments.

Healthwatch is an independent organisation that gathers and represents people’s experiences of health and care services, using this feedback to support improvements in the quality of care. Their feedback about the practice was mixed. They told us people reported overall satisfaction with the care provided, and some concerns were raised regarding appointment access, staff communication, and reception processes.

On the day of our site visit, feedback we received from people was mostly positive about telephone and online access, and about the availability of urgent same‑day appointments. However, people told us that access to routine, pre‑bookable appointments was more limited. Following our inspection, the practice told us that pre-bookable appointments could be made up to 6-weeks in advance.

During our visit, we reviewed appointment availability and found that routine appointments for some services, including immunisations, cervical screening and diabetes reviews, were not readily available. At the time of the inspection, the next available routine appointments for these services were in approximately 4 weeks’ time.

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.

The practice supported more young people; 24% are aged under 18 years, and fewer older people – 8% aged over 65 years.

People were able to access the service online, by telephone or by visiting the reception desk. Forty-five percent of patients registered with the practice had signed up to online services. Staff provided additional support for people with identified needs who were unable to use the online system, including submitting requests on their behalf where appropriate. The practice continued to assist patients who attended reception in person.

The practice offered a range of appointment types including face-to-face, telephone, online and home visits. People who were or might be vulnerable could register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode such as people who lived on boats, people who were homeless, and travellers.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations 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.

Staff described how they had made reasonable adjustments for people when needed, for example offering longer appointments, and where possible offering appointments with the same clinicians so the person knew what to expect, and scheduling appointments at preferred times of the day.

The practice also used telephone-based interpreter services to help those people with language needs. Some staff members could also speak other languages and could support discussions.

People were not always 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 review of clinical records showed that some of the Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions had not been recorded in line with relevant legislation. There was not always evidence that patients, or their relatives and carers where appropriate, had been involved in these decisions.

When a decision about DNACPR had been made, a code was added to the patient’s record to alert staff. During our review we found cases where it was unclear whether a DNACPR order was in place, or the DNACPR form was difficult to locate within the record. This was particularly evident for people who had moved between different care settings.

Clinicians in the practice relied on these codes to identify patients with DNACPR decisions. However, clinicians were not always able to find supporting information within the electronic record that explained the patient’s wishes or the rationale for the decision. This created a risk that staff might not have all the information required to act in accordance with the patient’s preferences.