You are here

Goring & Woodcote Medical Practice Good


Review carried out on 7 October 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Goring & Woodcote Medical Practice on 7 October 2021. 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 Goring & Woodcote Medical Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 13 July 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Goring & Woodcote Medical Practice on 13 July 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.

Inspection carried out on 27 July 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Goring & Woodcote Medical Practice on 27 July 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.
  • 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 areas of outstanding practice:

  • The practice had identified 550 patients as carers (6% of the practice list) through a sustained campaign to raise awareness among patients and staff, including at the annual flu clinics and as a regular agenda items at practice meetings. The practice supported the monthly meetings of the local carers’ group, which were advertised in the waiting rooms on dedicated carers’ noticeboards and the information screens. Members of the practice team attended these meetings to speak on a variety of subjects, and a member of the carers; group was a representative on the practice's patient participation group. One of the reception team had been identified as the practice’s carers’ champion, and one of the GP partners led on carer issues. Both were due to attend a carers' rights conference in Oxford later this year, to keep abreast of current issues and share their learning with the practice.

  • The practice had been running on site memory clinics for patients with possible dementia, to reduce the need for hospital referral, and had been feeding back on these to the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). A survey of patients using this service had been undertaken in March 2016, and had received positive feedback. Through dementia diagnosis, the practice had achieved 100% for the expected prevalence of the condition among its practice population, leading the 10 other GP practices in the South East Oxfordshire locality.

The area where the provider should make improvement is:

  • Ensure that decisions to except patients from national targets for receiving treatment or attending clinical reviews for long term conditions continue to be effectively monitored and reviewed.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice