Oakwood Surgery

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity, and respect.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remained the same.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We reviewed feedback from people from a range of sources including National surveys, NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) and the service’s internal feedback systems. Feedback was generally positive and confirmed that people felt they were treated with kindness and dignity.

Arrangements were in place to promote people’s privacy. Patient consultations were held in private consulting rooms and there was a designated room for breast feeding. There were confidentiality and dignity policies in place to further assist staff to know how to maintain confidentiality.

National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. For example, 86% of people said they felt their needs were met. This was just under the local average of 88% and national average of 90%. In addition, they also felt they were treated with kindness. For example, 81% said that the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last general practice appointment. This was similar to the local average of 82% and national average of 86%.

Staff that chaperoned people were aware of their responsibilities in maintaining a person’s dignity and safety during an intimate examination, and we observed notices around the service advising that chaperones were available and ready to support people.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure their care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People's personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were understood and met. For example, the service actively considered the religious needs of people diagnosed with diabetes and actively worked with them to plan nutrition around fasting periods. This included ensuring it was safe for them to fast and adjusting medicines appropriately during those periods.

People’s communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care. Information was created for people in multiple languages, where the service identified the need. For example, we saw information posters and videos were displayed in and around the service in English and other languages.

The service promoted people’s independence, so they knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment, and wellbeing.

At our last inspection we identified people found it hard to access the practice. At this inspection we found this had improved. Staff helped people and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services. The service had carers champions who were trained to support carers and be aware of where to refer them for extra support. They highlighted where information was available and maintained carer information boards.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress.

There was a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams. The 2025 GP Patient Survey indicated 84%of people knew what the next step would be in dealing with their request, this was lower than local and national averages of 93%. The provider had consulted with the PPG and improved patient access and understanding through digital appointment booking and communication.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported staff to deliver person-centred care.

We received consistent, positive feedback from staff about working at the service. Staff were proud of the organisation and spoke highly of the culture and how they were valued. There were high levels of staff engagement and development. Staff were actively encouraged to raise concerns informally or through regular formal supervisions and appraisals.

Leaders had taken steps to recognise and meet the wellbeing needs of staff, which included the necessary resources and facilities for safe working, such as regular breaks and rest areas. This included making reasonable adjustments such as modifying working patterns to support health needs and caring responsibilities; and adapted workstations to meet staff members specific needs. Occupational health support was also utilised to ensure staff well-being. Staff we spoke with confirmed they were treated as individuals and their individual wellbeing was considered. Staff told us they were valued by leaders.