Statham 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

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 79 (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 service performed above both local and national averages in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. For example, 85% had a good overall experience of contacting the practice which was higher than the local and national averages. 80% of patients found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone, which was significantly above the local average of 51% and national average of 53%. There were 60% of respondents who found it easy to contact the service using their website which was higher than the local (47%) and national averages (51%). In response to the GPPS feedback the service had re-designed the practice website to make it clearer on how to book appointments and consult online.

The service used the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) data and also online reviews to drive improvements. They shared NHS FFT results from 2025 to 2026 which showed most respondents had a positive experience, with most patients rating the service as very good (83%) or good (11%). The practice had responded to the smaller numbers of negative comments and made changes to improve people’s experience.

The leaders had monitored patient access to appointments and completed audits to identify any barriers to accessing the service. Leaders told us the service had acted to improve the telephone greeting message.

Receptionists navigated patients to the appropriate service. All urgent cases were prioritised and triaged by a clinician on the day of request to ensure patients were seen in priority of risk to prevent admission to secondary care. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and there was level access and an automatic door at the entrance to the service. Patients had access to an enhanced service from 6.30 pm to 10 pm on weekdays and all day at weekends.

The leaders had developed a proactive care register to review high‑risk patients, for example, patients who frequently attended the GP, out‑of‑hours, and AE. Clinicians reviewed patients on the proactive care register at monthly multidisciplinary meetings (GPs, nurses, pharmacists, and social prescribers) to tailor interventions to meet their needs and provide better outcomes. Patients were referred to appropriate support services, such as proactive care for frail older adults and carers, falls services, and social prescribing.

The practice had identified there were younger patients who were at a higher risk or unmet mental health needs and who did not have much support in their community. The practice proactively contacted these patients 4 times a year to ensure there was continuity and support.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment.

The GP national patient survey for 2025 does not request a response from patients who are specifically experiencing inequalities. Staff and leaders considered the needs of people with different protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. Staff used highly visible reasonable adjustment alerts in patient records to support people’s access to healthcare. Staff used proactive care flags for patients who may have additional needs.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

Examples included;

Working to make the practice more dementia‑friendly by reviewing access to dementia reviews. Staff identified 21 patients on the dementia register then checked that patients had a dementia screen alert and ensured patients were added to the proactive care register. The service looked at list of patients coded with mild cognitive impairment and GP Registrars reached out to these patients and their carers. Staff also ensured there was an up-to-date record of DNACPR discussion and plan for care documented.

The service had updated some notices and signage in the practice to make them more dementia friendly. The practice also had a protocol to book appointments for patients with dementia during quieter times to provide a calmer and more supportive environment.

Womens health - Leaders had supported the Practice Nurse to become specialist women’s health nurse with expertise in menopause, sexual health and complex contraception. Patients could access women’s health appointments at the practice and at the women’s community health hub in the area.

The practice also identified a need for and worked with the PCN social prescriber to develop a Turkish women’s group to reduce isolation and increase physical activity and confidence.

There was a system in place to identify and record the needs of autistic patients and other individuals requiring reasonable adjustments. The practice had a policy to support autistic people visiting the surgery which included sensory supports such as low lighting and an additional quiet waiting space. The practice manager had created an infographic floor plan of the premises to send to patients to help them plan their visit to the surgery. The service had a specialist autism coordinator available to provide support and answer any questions patients may have. Staff were trained in equality and diversity, and all staff had completed part one of Oliver McGowan training.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. The service were members of the Safe Surgeries scheme to ensure that the registration policy and service is non-discriminatory and accessible to all. The service had designated staff who were trained to help patients who may feel digitally excluded.

Leaders 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. For example, the practice took part in a PCN led outreach service to migrant hotels in 2024/2025 offering assistance with booking GP appointments/screening and vaccination and community navigation.

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. Minutes from PPG meetings showed leaders had listened to patients directly raising improvement points, and the practice had responded constructively.

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.