During an assessment under our new approach
Date of Assessment: 12 May 2026 to 19 May 2026. The Old School Surgery is a GP practice and delivers services to approximately 32,700 people under a contract held with NHS England. The service also has a branch site based at The University of the West of England specifically for students and some university staff. We visited both branch and main site during this assessment. The National General Practice Profiles states the ethnic make-up of the service is 76% White, 10% Asian, 7% Black, 5% mixed and 2% other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities showed that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 6th decile (6 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. Leaders investigated incidents thoroughly and evidenced where learning had been identified and action taken. 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 identified were mitigated. However, we identified some shortfalls in infection prevention and control processes, fridge temperature monitoring and the management of on-site medicines.
There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Leaders made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. However, we identified some shortfalls in recruitment files.
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 recognised where people did not have the capacity to make decisions and involved those who were important to the person when making decisions regarding their best interests. However, we found some shortfalls in the documenting of this.
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: People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand.
The service was easy to access and 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. However, we found some shortfalls in the documenting of this.
WELL-LED: Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening and learning. Leaders were knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles.
There were established systems and processes to ensure good governance. However, we identified some shortfalls in the effectiveness of these processes.
Staff felt supported to give feedback and were free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities.
There was a culture of continuous improvement.
The service worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas.