Oakwood Surgery

Updated 16 December 2025

Date of Assessment: 31 March 2026 to 30 May 2026. Oakwood Surgery is a GP practice and delivers a service to 11178 people, under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnic make-up of the practice area is 54% Asian, 29% White, 7% Black, 6% Other and 4% Mixed ethnicities. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities showed that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 1st decile (1 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.

This assessment was carried out as a result of CQC receiving information of concern and also to follow-up to the previous assessment conducted in June 2022, when the service was rated good overall but received a requires improvement rating for the key question of Effective. The purpose of this assessment was to follow up on the concerns and confirm whether the required improvements identified in the previous inspection had been implemented.

The service had a culture of safety, with effective safeguarding processes, good management of referrals and test results, and well-supported staff. Clinical searches showed people generally received safe care and appropriate medicines monitoring. While some issues were identified relating to emergency medicines, equipment checks and medicines management, leaders acted promptly to address these concerns. Overall, people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and the service continued to provide safe care.

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. When individuals lacked capacity, staff involved those who were important to them and made decisions in their best interests. Although the service had worked to improve immunisation rates for children, increase cancer detection rates and improve the uptake of cervical screening, they remained under target.

People were treated with kindness and compassion, felt truly respected and valued as individuals and this was reflected in a range of feedback collected as part of this inspection. We saw a variety of examples where staff took account of patient’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and backgrounds in the provision of person-centred care. The service supported and promoted staff wellbeing.

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand in a variety of languages. They knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service worked to eliminate discrimination. 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 had established an inclusive, positive, learning and improvement culture and were driving improvements in outcomes for people who accessed services at Oakwood Surgery and wider communities. There were examples of how an inclusive supportive and collaborative leadership approach had driven improvements in safety, sustainability, care integration, meeting people's needs and addressing inequalities for people who used services alongside staff. However, we found key issues were identified during the inspection rather than through the provider's own assurance systems which indicated that governance oversight was not always sufficiently robust. This was also reflected by gaps in the oversight of emergency medicines, incomplete recording of medication reviews, inconsistent monitoring of clinical outcomes, lower-than-average patient experience regarding access, and challenges in achieving key population health indicators. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that while governance systems were established and generally effective, they did not always enable leaders to identify, monitor and address risks in a timely and comprehensive way at the practice.

Updated 16 December 2025

People were positive about the quality of their care and treatment. We received direct positive feedback via our website from 53 people reporting the surgery was well managed and staff were caring. Recent survey results, including from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test, showed people were generally satisfied with services. For example, results from the GP Patient Survey showed that 67% report a good overall experience of the practice. Most scores relating to appointments (including trust, care, listening and confidence) were scored between 78% and 91%. These were broadly in line with, or only slightly below national averages, indicating good patient care once seen. 51% of respondents found it easy to contact this GP practice using their website, which was above the local average score of 43% and in line with the national average score of 51%. 59% of respondents found it easy to contact this GP practice using the NHS App, which was above both the local average of 44% and the national average of 49%. However, some of the feedback gathered by the National GP Patient Survey indicated patients reported poor access and administrative experience reducing overall performance down. For example, only 37% found it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone, compared with a local result of 45% and a national result of 53%. 67% found the reception and administrative team at this GP practice helpful, compared with a local average of 78% and a national average of 83%. 17% reported they usually got to see or speak to their preferred healthcare professional when they would like to, which was below the local average of 34% and a national average of 40%.

There was an active patient participation group (PPG) who represented the views of people using the service. We spoke with a representative from the PPG, and they described the strong relationship between the service and the PPG, and how the service encouraged, respected and valued the PPG involvement. They explained that the relationship was proactive, providing a forum to discuss issues important to people which were then shared with the staff team. The meetings provided an environment for discussions and agreements about the practice and services provided and members were encouraged to contribute their views and suggestions.