Greystoke 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 provider met people’s needs, and staff treated people equally and without discrimination. This was a focused assessment, which meant we did not assess all quality statements. Our rating is determined from the findings of both this assessment and our previous assessment(s). At our last assessment, we rated this key question as outstanding and this remains unchanged due to the focused nature of this assessment. However, updated quality statement scores have been issued where relevant.

This service scored 93 (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 provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider performed better than the national average in the results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey. This showed people could access the practice when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the provider’s website. For example, 89% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this practice as being good, compared to a national average of 73%. Feedback from people to CQC highlighted that people felt positively about access to this practice and felt that it met their needs. People praised the practice for their continuity in care, describing they were able to see their usual GP. A representative from the PPG told us that practice leaders listened to feedback relating to access, and practice leaders had attended PPG meetings to discuss this and provide information on the roles of different healthcare professionals that were available for appointments. Treatment rooms were available on the first floor, with a lift and stairs available. Practice leaders had taken feedback from a group of people with a learning disability who conducted a walkthrough of the practice. Based on this feedback, practice leaders developed some written leaflets, and introduced a sensory friendly chair in the waiting room.

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, staff had established a relationship with a local foodbank. Practice leadership included details of the foodbank within text messages inviting people for their flu vaccinations and collected donations during the clinic. The practice also served as a pickup point for food parcels over holiday periods where the food bank itself was closed. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the practice, which included those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. This was reflected in the feedback shared from people who used the practice, which was positive. There was a section of the practice website, which was dedicated to young people and young carers, which contained information on the support available to these groups.

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.