• Doctor
  • GP practice

Oakeswell Health Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Brunswick Park Road, Wednesbury, West Midlands, WS10 9HP 0844 576 9105

Provided and run by:
Oakeswell Health Centre

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 26 November 2025 to 5 December 2025. Oakeswell Health Centre is a GP practice and delivers service to 9823 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that 73.93% of patients are White, 16.38% Asian, 4.68% Black, 3.29% Mixed and 1.73% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 2nd decile (2 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.

SAFE: The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly and processes were in place to ensure learning was shared with all the team to mitigate future risks. 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. Effective processes for the recruitment of staff were in place to ensure all the appropriate checks had been completed prior to commencing employment. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

EFFECTIVE: 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. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

CARING: People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.

RESPONSIVE: The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. Feedback from patients was positive about accessing the services provided and this was also reflected in the results of the GP National Patient Survey. 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.

WELL-LED: 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. There were effective governance processes and systems in place to identify, manage and mitigate risks. 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.

23rd September 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Oakeswell Health Centre on 23rd September 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.

  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about the services provided and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

12 August 2014

During a routine inspection

Oakeswell Health Centre is a general practice located in Wednesbury in the West Midlands. It is a training practice for fully qualified doctors to gain experience and higher qualifications in general practice and family medicine.

On the day of our inspection we spoke with nine patients who were all very complimentary about the care and treatment they received. They told us that all staff were welcoming, respectful and caring. All patients we spoke with told us that the appointment system for non urgent appointments needed to be improved. We reviewed 39 patient comment cards from our Care Quality Commission (CQC) comments box which we had asked to be placed in the practice prior to our inspection. There were 36 out of 39 patients who were extremely complimentary about the service. Eight patients gave negative comments about the length of time to get a non urgent appointment. All patients told us that emergency, urgent appointments were easily accessible for patients.

We found that the service was safe. Patients were protected from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm. Performance was consistent over time and there were effective arrangements in place for reporting safety incidents. There were robust systems in place for safeguarding adults and children.

We found that the service was effective. Patients received care and treatment which achieved good outcomes, promoted a good quality of life and was based on the best available evidence.

We found that the staff treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. Two patients told us that they felt there was not enough opportunity for confidentiality when at the reception desk. Staff confirmed that if a patient needed to discuss a confidential matter, they could ask to discuss this in a private room away from reception.

We found that the service was responsive. Services were organised to meet the diverse needs of the patients. The practice was aware of improvements needed to the appointments system for non urgent appointments and was regularly monitoring how it worked. New initiatives were being trialled to enable patients to have a non urgent appointment to meet their needs.

We found that the service was well led. The leadership, management and governance supported learning and innovation and promoted an open and fair culture. We saw that the processes in place provided assurance that high quality care was being delivered.