• Doctor
  • GP practice

Canberra Old Oak Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Parkview Centre for Health, Cranston Court, 56 Bloemfontein Road, London, W12 7FG (020) 7062 6320

Provided and run by:
AT Medics Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

Assessment report published 25 March 2026

Ratings

  • Overall

    Good

  • Safe

    Good

  • Effective

    Good

  • Caring

    Good

  • Responsive

    Good

  • Well-led

    Good

Our view of the service

Date of Assessment: 14 May 2025 to 16 May 2025. Canberra Old Oak Surgery is a GP practice and delivers services to around 9,750 people under an NHS contract held by AT Medics Limited, part of the Operose Health Group. The National General Practice Profiles show that the practice population had a larger young working-age population compared to the national average. The local population is ethnically diverse. Around half of the population are White; 19% are Black; 14% are Asian; 7% are Mixed and 10% are classified as ‘Other’. Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the third decile (3 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. 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 and any risks mitigated. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff generally managed medicines well but medicines reviews were not always being carried out in a timely way.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Staff monitored outcomes and were working to improve childhood immunisation and cervical screening coverage which were below target.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity and responded to people’s immediate needs.

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was working to improve access and reduce health and care inequalities. 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 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 were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.

People's experience of this service

We received 11 comments from people using the service for this assessment. Six were positive about the service and 5 were critical, particularly about difficulties obtaining an appointment.

We reviewed the 2025 National GP patient survey results. These showed that the service tended to score below the national and local averages for quality of patient experience and accessibility. However, it had improved many of its indicator scores over the previous year. Fifty percent of respondents described the service as good overall in 2025 compared to 75% nationally. The service scored 43% on this indicator in 2024.

The practice was aware that patient experience and accessibility remained areas for improvement and had an action plan in place. There was an active patient participation group (PPG) that represented the views of people using the service. We spoke with a representative of the group who told us the service listened and acted on their views. They described work in progress with the service to engage and support the local community with healthy living initiatives.