You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

We have not inspected this service yet

Inspection summaries and ratings at previous address

Overall summary & rating


Updated 16 March 2020

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Woodlea House Surgery on 29 January 2020 as part of our inspection programme.

We decided to undertake an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us. This inspection focused on the following key questions:

Is the service effective?

Is the service well led?

Because of the assurance received from our review of information we carried forward the ratings for the following key questions:

Is the service safe?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

The practice was previously inspected in September 2016 and the report published in November 2016 with an overall rating of Good and Good in each key question and population group.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as Good for providing services because:

  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs.
  • The number of complete cycle clinical audits processes was relatively low at the time of inspection.
  • GPs met daily to complete administration, telephone calls and for peer review and communication. Locum GPs were provided with information packs.
  • The practice was engaging well with other stakeholders and was in the process of merging with the south coast medical group.
  • All staff we spoke with felt supported by the leadership team. The practice had shown great resilience in overcoming significant staffing changes in 2019.
  • Patient feedback from a wide range of sources was very positive about the practice.
  • The practice actively identified carers and had successfully identified 3% of their practice population, in order to provide them with appropriate support.
  • The practice was dementia friendly and staff had received training in this area.
  • The practice actively identified military veterans and had an armed forces covenant policy in order to ensure veterans received priority access to secondary care for any conditions relating to service to their country.

We rated the four population groups of older people, working age people, vulnerable people, families, children and young people, patients experiencing mental health issues including dementia as good.

We rated the population group of patients with long term conditions as requires improvement. This was because of higher than average exception reporting for patients with long term conditions. The practice acknowledged that it was in the process of improving its rates of exception reporting in the quality outcomes framework (QOF) for patients in this population group.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Continue to review and improve its exception reporting for patients with long term conditions such as diabetes, asthma, COPD and hypertension.
  • Continue to review and improve cervical cancer screening in line with national guidance.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

Inspection areas










Checks on specific services

People with long term conditions

Requires improvement

Families, children and young people


Older people


Working age people (including those recently retired and students)


People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia)


People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable