- GP practice
Great Ayton Health Centre
Report from 19 June 2025 assessment
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 05 August 2025 to 12 August 2025.
Great Ayton Health Centre is a GP practice that delivers services to 5672 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The list size has remained relatively static since 2016.
The practice currently has 2 GP partners, 1 retainer GP, 2 salaried GPs, 3 Practice Nurses and 1 Healthcare Assistant, as well as administrative and reception staff and staff employed through the Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS) such as pharmacists, physiotherapists, mental health practitioners, frailty nurses, care co-ordinators and social prescribers. They also host 4 GP registrars from South Tees NHS Foundation Trust who are undergoing training.
The practice is registered with CQC to provide the following regulated activities: Diagnostic and screening procedures, Family planning, Maternity and midwifery services, Surgical procedures and Treatment of disease, disorder, or injury.
The practice was previously assessed in May 2017 and was rated ‘Good’ overall.
The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnic make-up of the practice is 97.9% white and 2.1% Asian, Black, Mixed Race or other. The age distribution of the practice population is significantly above the national average for older people (33% v 17.5%) and below the national average for young people (15% v 19.5%).
Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the ninth decile (9 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others.
This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.
The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. Learning from significant events was shared with staff if it was relevant to their role. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained although the system for managing emergency medicines required review. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications, and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. However, the provider was not following their own policy with regard to clinical supervision. The service made sure that medicines and treatments were mostly safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. However, there were some areas of medicines optimisation that required review, for example, security of blank prescriptions.
People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.
The service was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment and the service was exceptional in how it listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. The service supported staff wellbeing.
People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was exceptional at ensuring that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.
Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable, and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff mostly felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.
Some areas of governance required review however, for example, not following their own policy regarding clinical supervision, management of blank prescription security and no risk assessment in place for emergency medicines.
People's experience of this service
People who used this service were given the opportunity to provide feedback to CQC as part of this assessment. We received feedback from 42 people, and they were all positive about the quality of care and treatment provided by Great Ayton Health Centre. No negative feedback was received.
Recent survey results, including from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test showed people were satisfied with services offered by the practice.
Recent information shared by Healthwatch was reviewed and no concerning issues, trends or themes were identified. Healthwatch acts as a champion for people using health and social care services, and they receive information of concern through various channels. This includes direct feedback from individuals, reports from local Healthwatch organisations, and data gathered from engagement activities like surveys and focus groups.They analyse this information to identify trends, highlight areas needing improvement, and inform decision-makers about public experiences and concerns.
There was an active patient participation group (PPG) that represented the views of people using the service. They met regularly with the management team and described how the practice had engaged with them and how they felt listened to. They were also able to identify how, because of their feedback, the practice had made improvements such as installing a large electronic monitor in the waiting room which cycles through screens providing information and advice for patients.
We received positive feedback from the local Integrated Care Board (ICB). An ICB is an NHS organisation in England responsible for planning and managing health services for a specific area within an Integrated Care System (ICS).