The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Wellfield Health Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

116 Oldham Road, Rochdale, Lancashire, OL11 1AD (01706) 397600

Provided and run by:
Wellfield Health Centre

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment:30 September 2025 to 2 October 2025. Wellfield Health Centre is a GP practice and delivers service to 13455 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnic make-up of the practice area is 57.72% White, 33.33% Asian, 3.99% Black and the rest made up of other ethnicities. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 1st decile (1 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. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly.

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 mitigated.

There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care.

The service did not always make sure that medicines were managed safely.

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 involved those important to people and took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

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. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. 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.

WELL-LED: Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.

3 August 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Wellfield Health Centre on  3 August 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 however documentation relating to staff immunisation status was incomplete.
  • 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 difficult to make an appointment because of the telephone system but there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day. A new telephone system had been chosen and was to be installed in October.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • The practice loaned equipment to patients such as blood pressure monitors and glucometers.
  • 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.

The area where the provider should make improvements:

  • Check the immunisation status for staff or carry out a risk assessment.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

17 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Our inspection of 3 December 2013 found that the resuscitation trolley contained medical equipment that was past its expiry date. There was no recruitment policy in place and appropriate pre-employment checks had not been carried out.

During this inspection we found that the provider had addressed all the areas of non-compliance identified. All equipment was found to be within its expiry date. A recruitment policy had been put in place and relevant staff checks had been carried out.

3 December 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with the practice manager, a doctor, a practice nurse, two receptionists and a healthcare assistant. We also spoke with five patients.

Patients told us they were treated respectfully by their doctor and all the staff were approachable. They said that the doctors discussed their options with them and they had a choice about any treatment required.

'On the day' appointments were available and patients could book routine appointments up to three weeks in advance. Some early morning, late evening and weekend appointments were available.

We saw that all areas of the practice were visibly clean. Protective clothing such as disposable gloves were available and liquid hand wash, alcohol hand gel and paper towels were available in all consultation rooms.

Regular checks on the quality of service provided were carried out.

Not all the required checks were carried out for staff prior to them starting work.

Most of the sterile equipment for use in a medical emergency was past its expiry date. One sterile wound pack had an expiry date of October 2006. Other equipment was visibly dirty and not appropriately stored.