Moss Grove Surgery - Kingswinford

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 71 (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. We found that reasonable adjustments were recorded and implemented to meet patient’s individual needs and preferences.

The practice worked in partnership with other organisations to decide how best to respond to any relevant changes in patient’s needs. Patients had access to appointments provided by a range of professionals such as GP, nurses, urgent care practitioners, pharmacists, physio and social prescriber.

Patient satisfaction scores in the National GP Patient Survey for 2025 were higher than local and national averages, particularly in areas relating to patient-centred care. For example, 94% said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last general practice appointment. This was above the local average of 82% and above the national average of 86%. Following the inspection, the 2026 survey results showed a slight decline in patient satisfaction, however this was still in line with local and national averages.

A review of clinical records confirmed that patients were supported in understanding their conditions and were actively involved in planning and making decisions about their care.

The practice employed an Urgent Care Practitioner who provided proactive, patient-centred support to housebound and vulnerable patients with complex health needs. Working closely with multidisciplinary teams and partner organisations, they helped coordinate care and ensure patients received personalised and joined-up support.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Clinicians maintained continuity wherever possible to provide consistent, person‑centred support for patients with complex care needs.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population and there were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare providers and services.

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

Information promoting health and wellbeing was readily available within the practice, and the website provided helpful resources to support health awareness and promotion. For example, we saw information in the reception areas for carers, and veterans. Health information was also available such as diabetes, child health and mental health. Patients were given access to clear information and signposting to help them understand how to access services. Interpreter services and a hearing loop were available to support patient communication needs.

There were systems in place to support patients to access treatment, and patient records were held in line with guidance and requirements. We found the practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and that information about people collected and shared was in line with data protection legislation requirements. Patients were informed how to access their care records.

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.

Information on how to raise a complaint was readily accessible, with patients able to do so either in person or through the practice website. We found clearly documented evidence showing that lessons learned from complaints were reviewed and actioned. For instance, 44 complaints had been reviewed and investigated over the past 12 months to identify recurring themes.

Feedback from the National GP Patient Survey data for 2025 demonstrated that 96% of patients said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment. This was above the local average of 84% and higher than the national average of 87%. Following the inspection, the 2026 survey results showed a slight decline in patient satisfaction across these measures; however, this was still in line and above local and national averages.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it and this was reflected in the National GP Patient Survey data for 2025 which showed 36% of respondents found it easy to get through to the provider by phone. This was significantly lower than the local average of 48% and the national average of 53%. Following the inspection, the 2026 survey results showed a further decline in patient satisfaction across this measure.

The practice had recognised these challenges and had reviewed the survey findings to identify areas for improvement. An action plan had been developed to improve patient satisfaction and access to services. This included undertaking a practice specific patient survey and seeking feedback from the Patient Participation Group (PPG). In response to patient feedback, the practice had amended its telephone messaging system, introduced a patient recall system and increased staffing levels during peak demand periods between 8am and 9am. Promotion was also in place regarding digital access through the NHS app.

Patients could access appointments both by telephone and online. A GP reviewed and triaged all online requests each day to ensure patients were prioritised according to clinical need. Staff were trained to book appointments with appropriate members of the clinical team or signpost patients to other suitable services where necessary. Patients were able to choose between face-to-face and telephone appointments. Requests for urgent appointments were accommodated on the same day, and requests for home visits were reviewed by a clinician and carried out when clinically appropriate.

The practice website provided clear information about how patients could access services and book appointments. The practice was registered as a Safe Surgery and staff feedback demonstrated that people experiencing vulnerability, including those with no fixed abode, were supported to register and access care (ASafe Surgeryis a GP practice which commits to taking steps to tackle the barriers faced by many migrants in accessing healthcare).

Appointments were available between 8am and 6.30pm throughout the week. The practice also offered extended access appointments on Tuesday evenings from 6.30pm to 8.30pm at its Kingswinford site. In addition, patients could access pre-bookable appointments on one Saturday each month and on a rotational Friday evening through arrangements with neighbouring practices. When the practice was closed, patients could obtain urgent medical advice and support through NHS 111.

Both practice sites had treatment rooms located on the ground floor. Disabled parking, accessible toilet facilities and baby changing facilities were available to support patients with additional access needs.

The practice monitored telephone performance data to support patient access and identify areas for improvement. There were 23 incoming telephone lines into the practice, and staffing levels were increased during peak periods to help manage demand. We reviewed telephone access data and found that, during the week commencing 18 May 2026, the practice received 1,391 calls. Of these, 74% were answered, with an average waiting time of 5 minutes and 12 seconds. As part of our assessment, we also reviewed the appointment system and found evidence of same-day appointment availability across a range of clinicians.

The practice used the Friends and Family Test (FFT) to gather patient feedback. For example, the results for June 2026 showed 94% of patients rated their overall experience of the practice as good/very good/excellent.

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 provider made reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes, including meeting the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). We saw examples where the practice had removed barriers for improved patient experience. For example, the practice had access to interpreters and a hearing loop. We found the premises user friendly for people with a disability and the practice provided areas for breast feeding as well as providing free nappies and baby wipes.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances. The provider was an Armed Forces Friendly GP Accredited practice. 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 with learning disabilities and poor mental health experienced additional care through annual reviews. People with dementia were referred to appropriate services where required.

Home visits were carried out for housebound and vulnerable patients. The provider also offered support to patients at 3 care homes across the locality. We spoke with representatives from 2 of these care homes, who told us they had observed improvements in the practice and felt that staff were responsive to the needs of their residents.

We spoke with patients at both sites during the assessment and received 225 feedback forms. Overall, 84% of patients reported a positive experience of the practice, describing staff as polite, friendly, efficient and professional. Areas of dissatisfaction primarily related to difficulties accessing the practice by telephone, limited appointment availability, long waiting times to get through on the phone, and some concerns regarding staff attitude.

The provider actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff and leaders demonstrated a good understanding of the local patient population, and the difficulties people may encounter. We did not see evidence of discrimination when staff made care and treatment decisions.

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.

The practice held regular multidisciplinary palliative care meetings to proactively review and coordinate care for patients with palliative and end-of-life care needs. 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.