Great Oakley Medical Centre

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. The practice complied with legal equality and human rights requirements. People were encouraged to give feedback which leaders used along with other evidence to improve services. People could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics. People, carers, and staff could easily access information and advice. This key question has been rated as good.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice 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.

The practice used patient feedback to identify areas for improvement and made necessary adjustments to ensure patient care was optimum. The patient participation group (PPG) were positive about their involvement with the practice and assured us any suggestions were taken seriously to improve patient care. Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. People with caring responsibilities were identified and supported. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals so they could access the most appropriate care.

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.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, the practice was actively involved in their local Primary Care Network (PCN), where they worked with other practices to improve the local health delivery. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare providers, information was available on a range of services people could access or self-refer to, which included carer support, drug and alcohol, and mental health services.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff told us information was available to patients in their reception area and on the practice's website. The practice website contained details on how to make an appointment, the services available, and resources.

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. They would highlight in patients' records if they had any communication or accessibility needs; information which staff gathered when a patient registered and opportunistically. Information provided by the practice met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. A hearing loop was available. Longer appointments were available to be booked if staff needed to use a translator, for neurodiverse people or people with a Learning Disability.

The practice was good at enabling people to share feedback, 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. The practice responded to the results of the national GP patient survey in 2025 by completing an action plan and tackling areas of patient dissatisfaction. For example, they worked to launch their digital triage system early to improve patient access and reduce pressures on the telephones. The triage system had been well received by patients. We were informed by members of the patient participation group (PPG) that they were supporting the practice with the development and delivery of a patient survey to gather formal feedback on the triage system and make improvements if needed and where possible. The practice held quarterly meetings with the PPG as an opportunity for the PPG to share the views of others. The PPG told us they had a good relationship with the practice and felt listened to and involved in decision making.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of people’s feedback, including complaints.

Data from the National GP Patient Survey highlighted that the practice scored lower than the local and national average for all questions related to access. 32% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by telephone, in comparison to the local average of 61% and national average of 53%. 59% responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice compared to the national average of 70%. 78% felt they waited the right amount of time for their last general practice appointment, which was above the national average of 74%. Staff advised the introduction of the total triage system had improved patient experience. The triage system provided data dashboards to enable better workforce planning and understand patient needs. By submitting queries online, phone call waiting time had reduced, urgent cases received faster responses and patients were booked with the appropriate professional, improving overall patient experience. Various appointment types were available such as in person, online and telephone consultations.  

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The practice was open from 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday. In addition, face to face appointments were available until 8pm on Mondays. Telephone appointments were available in accordance with extended access requirements until 8pm on other weekday evenings. Both face to face and telephone appointments were available from 7:30am on Fridays. The practice was accessible for wheelchair users and there was a lift available.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was largely positive. Results of the National GP patient survey 2025, found 72% of patients surveyed responded positively to the overall experience of their GP practice, which was in line with the national average of 75%. 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 practice, 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. Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care. Staff spoke with kindness and compassion about how the information for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms was gathered. They documented decisions made by patients about cardiopulmonary resuscitation on these ReSPECT forms and patient records and ensured these were regularly reviewed and updated. This information was shared with other services when necessary. Palliative patients were discussed during monthly multi-disciplinary meetings.