Oakeswell Health Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

Leaders understood the challenges to patient access and services were being designed to make them accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The provider prioritised, allocated resources and opportunities as needed to tackle inequalities and achieve equity of access.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The practice told us that they regularly involved patients in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment that met their needs. Staff had been trained in equality and diversity, consent, deprivation of liberty safeguarding and mental capacity.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Patient satisfaction scores in the GP National Patient Survey were slightly below local and national averages, particularly in areas relating to patient-centred care. For example, 66% of people said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at considering their mental wellbeing during their last general practice appointment. This was slightly below the local average of 71% and the national average of 74%.

A review of clinical records confirmed that patients were supported in understanding their conditions and were actively involved in planning and making decisions about their care.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The practice had patients registered at 2 local nursing homes within the PCN. We sought feedback from the homes regarding the GP service provided and we received mixed feedback. The staff we spoke with at the nursing homes stated they valued their professional working relationship and highlighted the clinical staff and leadership team were receptive and responsive to the needs of the homes. Comments were received about difficulties on occasions with the reception staff and getting through to the practice. We discussed this with the leadership team who told us they had met with the nursing homes and to improve access, a dedicated email had been set up for the nursing homes to send through requests. This was confirmed by the nursing homes. The clinical staff supported the patients’ families, reviewed DNACPR forms, regularly reviewed medicines and provided clinical advice to their staff.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language.

The practice website included useful information on health awareness and promotion. Information and resources were available for patients to support them to understand how to access services.

There were systems in place to support patients to access treatment, and patient records were held in line with guidance and requirements. We found the practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and that information about people collected and shared was in line with data protection legislation requirements. Patients were informed how to access their care records.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Information about how to complain was readily available and patients could make a complaint in person or via the practice website.

Feedback from the GP national patient survey demonstrated that 81% of patients said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment. This was slightly below the local average of 84% and the national average of 87%.

The practice used the Friends and Family Test (FFT) to gather patient feedback. The results for October 2025 showed 94.% of patients who had attended the practice said the practice was very good/good.

We spoke with patients on the day of the onsite assessment and received positive feedback on the care and treatment people received.

There was a patient participation group (PPG), in place and meetings were held every 3 months. We spoke with 1 member of the group who told us they were actively trying to encourage patients to join, and we saw evidence to promote the PPG in the reception area.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The practice told us they obtained feedback from various sources such as complaints and via informal feedback from patients. The GP national patient survey showed 36% of respondents found it easy to get through to the provider by phone. This was lower than the local average of 48% and the national average of 53%. Following the outcomes of the National GP Patient Survey the practice had completed a review of the responses and had implemented an action plan. For example, to improve telephone access, the practice had implemented a self-booking system for patients to be able to book more clinics directly such as vaccinations and diabetes clinics. The practice had now introduced digital services and were promoting these with patients to reduce the waiting times on the phones. The leadership team had also increased the number of reception staff to ensure phone calls and queries were dealt with in a timely manner.

Patients could access appointments by phone and online. The practice used an online triage system where all requests for a GP appointment were directed to the duty doctor to make a decision on the appropriate care pathway required. Patients were given the option of a face to face or telephone appointment. Patients who had a request for an emergency appointment were seen the same day. Feedback from patients we spoke with on the day of the assessment highlighted mixed reviews on the difficulties they faced in completing the form. Staff were available to support patients who were digitally excluded to complete the form. The practice website provided information for patients regarding how to book an appointment. Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode.

The practice had been monitoring the results of triage system and found that requests through the system had steadily increased as patients became used to using the new system. Calls to the practice had reduced, allowing staff more time to support patients who were digitally excluded and needed help in completing the form. Data provided by the practice showed in September 2025, a total of 5840 appointments had been booked, and 105 patients had failed to attend. Data for October 2025 after the triage system had been implemented, showed 7291 appointments had been booked, of these 166 appointments had been wasted due to patients not attending.

At the time of the onsite assessment, the practice had implemented an inhouse survey to gather patient feedback on the new triage system. The survey had been sent out to 1101 patients, which represented 11% of the practice population, copies of the survey were also available in reception. The practice planned to close the survey at the end of November 2025 and review the outcomes of the survey with staff and the PPG to identify any further improvements.

Feedback from the PPG was positive on the new triage system and we were told that the new system had been discussed thoroughly with the PPG before implementation. Patients had also been advised of the new system before its launch.

Appointments with a GP were available throughout the week. Extended appointments were available for vulnerable people and those with a learning disability. The practice provided extended hours appointments on Monday evening until 8pm. When the practice was closed patients were able to contact 111. The practice offered appointments from a variety of additional clinical staff for example nurses and a pharmacist. Pre-booked appointments were available on weekday evenings and on Saturday through an arrangement with other local GP practices.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, disabled parking and disabled toilet facilities were also available.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes, including meeting the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). We saw examples where the practice had removed barriers for improved patient experience. For example, the practice premises had a hearing loop in place and access to interpreters was available. We found the premises user friendly for people with a disability.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

People with learning disabilities and poor mental health experienced additional care through annual reviews. People with dementia were referred to appropriate services where required.

People we spoke with on the day of assessment was positive about the services provided. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Leaders understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision making and had access to policies to support them. We were told that the practice held multidisciplinary meetings to share and discuss information relating to patient care and treatment, for example, those on the practice palliative care register.

There were systems in place to ensure staff kept up to date in training relating to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty. We found that staff had completed the required training.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) forms were in place and available within the clinical record.