High Oak 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.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

We found people could access services when they needed to, without physical or digital barriers, including out of normal hours and in an emergency.

We found that 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.

Leaders understood the challenges to patient access and services were designed to make them accessible. The provider also worked collaboratively within the Primary Care Network (PCN), contributing to the development of local services and supporting wider system integration.

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 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.

Patient satisfaction scores in the GP National Patient Survey were higher than local and national averages, particularly in areas relating to patient-centred care. For example, 86% of respondents found the reception and administrative team helpful, in comparison to the local average of 79% and the national average of 83%. In addition 92% of respondents felt they were involved in decisions about their care, which was higher than the local average of 90% and national average of 91%.

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 practice worked in partnership with the Primary Care Network (PCN), enabling access to a range of services tailored to the needs of its patient population. These included a social prescriber, dietician, first contact physiotherapist, lower limb specialist, health, and wellbeing coaches, listening and guidance support, and cancer care coordinators.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff were trained in care navigation and had access to resources to signpost patients to appropriate services. Information was available to help patients understand how to access the support they required.

The practice website included useful information on health awareness and promotion. Data from the GP Patient survey 2025 showed that 57%of respondents found it easy to contact the practice using their website, which was higher than the local average of 46% and the national average of 51%. We saw that areas of access were reviewed in practice meetings.

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.

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 patient feedback, including complaints.

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

feedback from patients was mixed about the length of time to access an appointment. Some patients reported timely access, whilst others reported delays in being seen. We found some of the reasons for this, were not seeing their preferred health professional; or wanting to be seen at another site. Evidence provided by the service indicated that the majority of the time people were accessing the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. On the day of inspection, we observed that a variety of appointment types were available over the following seven days, offering patients access to different clinicians.

The practice was open for patients Monday to Friday, from 7:00am to 6:30pm and every Saturday 7am to 10am. Extended access appointments were available at practices within the primary care network. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available at both sites on the ground floor.

The National GP Patient Survey data showed that 53% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by phone and 57% found it easy to contact the practice via their website. This was higher than local averages and in line with national averages. However, 32% found it easy to contact the practice via the NHS app which was lower than local and national averages. Additionally, 75% of respondents felt they waited the right amount of time for their last appointment, which was higher than the national average of 67%. Feedback from Friends and Family Tests was reviewed and discussed during practice meetings. During our inspection, we found that appointments with a range of clinicians were available over the following seven days. The practice also continued to encourage patients to utilise available parking facilities in the local area to support access at The High Oak site.

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.

The practice promoted and responded to feedback by people who used the service and people were able to share their views via the practice website or by contacting The Trust directly.

Friends and Family Test (FFT) data from June 2025 indicated that 91% of patients rated their overall experience of the service as ‘good or very good’. Data from the GP Patient survey 2025 showed that peoples overall experience of the GP service was positive as demonstrated in the National GP Patient survey, where the practice had achieved 75%, which was higher than the local average of 71% and 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. For example, following the relocation of the practice premises during the COVID-19 pandemic, and in consultation with patients, the service continued to operate a satellite clinic at the former Pensnett site two days per week. This arrangement was maintained to enhance accessibility for patients residing closer to the previous location.

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.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, considering the needs of people with protected characteristics, and making reasonable adjustments to support equitable experiences and outcomes. The practice met the Accessible Information Standard (AIS).

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, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.