Oldfield Surgery

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.

This service scored 75 (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.

Care plans reflected people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those linked to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

People told us they felt respected and involved in decisions. People said their privacy was maintained and staff were helpful and polite. People could request a chaperone to accompany them in an appointment.

Clinical staff explained how they supported shared decision-making, including for people with complex needs or learning disabilities. Care homes reported positive engagement during weekly ward rounds and monthly multidisciplinary meetings, which included safeguarding discussions and family involvement.

Reasonable adjustments were in place to support communication, such as access to interpreters. A quiet room was available for those who wanted a private space or needed to discuss sensitive issues.

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 service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its population and to ensure continuity of care. Systems supported smooth transitions between hospital and community care, and staff maintained oversight of referrals and results.Weekly MDT meetings with care homes and regular liaison with community health teams ensured coordinated care for vulnerable people. Clinical staff described strong links with health visitors, school nurses, and paramedics to support continuity and timely interventions

The service tailored its approach to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, it built relationships with local community groups to promote the uptake of screening programmes. Staff also offered cervical screening at the homeless hostel and carried out home visits for people who could not leave their homes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider to support these initiatives.

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

Information to encourage people to take up screening and immunisation programmes was available. The service could access interpreter services, including British Sign Language.

Information posters were displayed to explain the service and the services offered. People were also given clear guidance on how to access their medical records.

The service provided some accessible information about its services and how to use them. Their website included details on booking appointments, ordering prescriptions, accessing test results, referrals, vaccinations, carers’ support, wellbeing resources, and how to give feedback or make a complaint.

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.

Complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of feedback from people who used the service, including complaints. For example, after a communication error in a text message, the service reviewed processes and shared learning with staff.

People told us they felt heard and staff explained things clearly. Feedback from the service’s patient participation group showed the service had made positive changes, including improving access and offering more support for carers. The service planned to have a meeting with its patient participation group to discuss ways to improve, support for carers and how to encourage more people to join the patient participation group.

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

In response to feedback from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey and the local community, the service had introduced changes to improve access. For example, longer appointment times for people with a learning disability or additional needs. People could access the service online, by telephone, or in person. Digital access through the NHS App and website was effective, enabling many people to manage appointments and prescriptions online. Staff demonstrated how they supported and communicated with people who could not use the online triage system.

Leaders demonstrated improvements in access had been achieved through their monitoring of the online triage system introduced in March 2024. The service’s analysis showed between December 2024 and November 2025, the service processed 97,421 triage requests, averaging 140 per day, with 60% submitted online. This equates to 3,781 requests per 1,000 people, which is above national and regional averages, showing high engagement and effective digital access. Leaders also reviewed Google review ratings before and after the triage system was introduced, which showed improved scores in access. They reported a steady reduction in triage list size and shorter call wait times since implementation.

Leaders had also introduced a same-day online triage system to improve responsiveness and reduce delays, and they are planning additional clinics on evenings and Saturdays to increase appointment choice. The service also worked with advocacy and community-based services to support people and carers, and outreach clinics are offered for people experiencing homelessness. These actions show a commitment to improving accessibility.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and were wheelchair accessible. Although parking was limited to blue badge holders and staff, on-street parking was available nearby.

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.

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. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. 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.

People were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Recommended Summary plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) decisions were documented in clinical records and were accessible to staff. Forms were signed and dated, and reasons for decisions were recorded in a clear way. Where people lacked capacity, mental capacity assessments were completed and outcomes noted. Safety-netting arrangements were in place to ensure ReSPECT decisions were reviewed appropriately and updated when people’s circumstances changed.

Discussions with people or their representatives were recorded, and where this was not possible, the reason was documented. There was evidence of multidisciplinary input, including collaboration with hospice teams and community services. Monthly meetings with the local hospice supported timely reviews and ensured care plans reflected people’s wishes.

The service used integrated care records so that other agencies, such as emergency services and hospitals, could access relevant information.

These processes helped staff provide compassionate, person-centred care and supported people to make decisions about end-of-life care, including advanced care planning and resuscitation preferences.