Granville House Medical Centre

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 75 (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 better than the national average in the results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey. This showed people could access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the service’s website. For example, 85% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 73%.

The service had recently changed the way they triaged patients who requested appointments. They had worked with their patients to help them understand the new system and there were systems in place to ensure patients who did not have digital skills or equipment could easily access appointments. Feedback in this area was positive. We saw that on the day and routine appointments were readily available.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local services, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. For example, there were arrangements to effectively communicate with people in the area living on canal boats without a permanent mooring who would struggle with postal communication. The service had a trained and certificated therapy dog who attended the practice on request. Specific infection prevention and control measures were in place, and other people were asked about any allergies before any attendance was agreed. The therapy dog helped some patients who may be anxious having blood tests, and we heard examples of housebound patients requesting the dog attended home visits. The service was a Veteran Friendly accredited practice.

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.