- GP practice
Oldfield Surgery
Assessment report published 2 March 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 24 November to 27 November 2025. Oldfield Surgery is a GP practice that delivers services to 26,408 people under a contract held with NHS England.
Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the service population group is in the 9th decile (9 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the service 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.
The service had a good learning culture where people and staff felt able to raise concerns. Leaders investigated incidents and shared lessons to improve care. People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and staff understood and managed risks well. Medicines were managed safely, and people were involved in planning any changes.
However, the environment was not always safe. Some risk assessments were incomplete, and the health and safety at work poster was not complete with the correct details, though immediate risks were addressed during inspection. Equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained. Leaders made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Not all documentation for recruiting new staff was in place but the service acted promptly to review HR files and strengthen the process.
The service involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided advice and support. Staff assessed and reviewed people’s needs regularly and used evidence-based guidance to plan care. People told us they felt informed and involved in their care.
Teams worked well together and with other services to provide continuity of care, including for people with complex needs. Multidisciplinary meetings supported safe decisions and helped prevent unnecessary hospital admissions. The service promoted healthier lives through health checks, screening, and lifestyle support, including outreach for people at risk of homelessness.
Care was monitored and improved through audits and quality improvement projects, which led to safer prescribing and better outcomes. However, the service did not always monitor the use and storage of paper prescriptions, although they were securely locked away. The service acted quickly and put a formal log in place to safely monitor prescription usage. Staff understood and applied consent and Mental Capacity Act principles, and decisions were documented appropriately.
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff respected their privacy and dignity and supported their preferences. Care was tailored to individual needs, and people felt listened to and involved in decisions. Flexible options, such as home visits and outreach clinics, helped meet diverse needs.
However, some people reported limited choice of appointment times, which reduced independence and control over their care. The service confirmed it was seeking to address this through extended clinics and improved booking systems. Staff wellbeing was prioritised, with resources, flexible working, and team-building initiatives in place to support a positive culture.
The service provided responsive, person-centred care. People told us they felt respected, involved in decisions, and supported to maintain privacy. Care plans reflected individual needs, and reasonable adjustments were in place, such as interpreter access and quiet spaces for sensitive discussions.
Staff worked closely with other services to ensure continuity of care. The service promoted equity in access through flexible appointments, home visits, and digital triage, which improved engagement and reduced waiting times.
People could share feedback easily, and complaints were managed well, with learning used to improve processes. Leaders acted on survey results and community feedback to enhance access. End-of-life planning was compassionate and well documented, with multidisciplinary input and timely reviews.
Leaders now promote a positive, inclusive culture where staff felt supported and able to speak up. Staff described leaders as approachable and said their views were valued. Equality and diversity were embedded in policies, and reasonable adjustments were made to support staff wellbeing. Opportunities for learning and development were available, and staff feedback showed high levels of job satisfaction.
Partnership working was strong, with collaboration across the local health system and engagement with the service’s patient participation group to improve access and services. The service demonstrated innovation and continuous improvement, and active involvement in research studies, which improved outcomes for people who used the service.
People's experience of this service
Recent survey results, including from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test, showed people were satisfied with services. There was an active patient participation group (PPG) that represented the views of people using the service. Representatives from the PPG described how leaders made positive changes because of feedback, such as introducing a new triage system.