The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Evergreen Oak Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

43 Commercial Road, Parkstone, Poole, Dorset, BH14 0HU (01202) 747496

Provided and run by:
Evergreen Oak Surgery

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Evergreen Oak Surgery on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Evergreen Oak Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

13 November 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Evergreen Oak Surgery on 13 November 2019. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

26 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Evergreen Oak Surgery on 26 October 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 services 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. The practice was clean, tidy and hygienic. We found suitable arrangements were in place that ensured the cleanliness of the practice was maintained to a high standard.
  • The practice was run efficiently and was well organised. 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.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

The practice had a named GP that cared for patients aged over 75 years. All of these 480 patients registered at the practice had received a health review that included clinical need, social need and screening for dementia either at home or in the practice. These patients had also been assessed for their needs should hospitalisation be required and for end of life care. Patients that lived home alone were visited monthly.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Review audit processes to ensure multiple cycle audits are undertaken to measure service improvement.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

8 November 2013

During a routine inspection

Evergreen Oak Surgery covered two sites and had 4,900 registered patients. Staff included four GP partners, a GP retainer, and a GP registrar (a qualified doctor training to be a GP). In addition the surgery employed two part time practice nurses, two part time healthcare assistants, a staff manager, medical secretaries, a range of part-time receptionists and a practice manager.

The practice provided extended opening hours on a Monday evening and operated a three times daily triage service where people could speak to a GP. People we talked with were complimentary about the surgery. Comments we received included, 'It's a friendly place, I wouldn't like to go to another doctor's' and, 'The GPs here always go the extra mile. They are great, I can't fault them'.

At this inspection we spoke with five people and a patient representative. We also spoke with five members of staff including the registered manager, who was a GP.

We found that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.