We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Oaks Partnership on 13 December 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

• what we found when we inspected
• information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
• information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as good overall and good for all population groups.

We found that:

• The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
• Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
• Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
• The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
• The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

• Improve the infection control audit tool to ensure it is general practice specific.
• Continue with their plan to summarise the backlog of new patients notes.
• Improve the identification of carers to enable this group of patients to access the care and support they need.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Oaks Surgery on 21 October 2014. During the inspection we gathered information from a variety of sources. For example; we will spoke with patients, members of the patient participation group, interviewed staff of all levels and checked that the right systems and processes were in place.

Overall the practice is rated as good. This is because we found the practice to be good for providing well-led, effective, caring and responsive services. It was also good for providing services for the care for the care of older people, people with long-term conditions, for the care of families, children and young people , for the care of working-age people, for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable and for the population group people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

Our key findings were as follows:

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed. Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
• People’s needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with current legislation. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs have been identified and planned.
• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Information to help patients understand the services available was easy to understand. We also saw that staff treated patients with kindness and respect, and maintained confidentiality.
• Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day. The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• 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 patient participation group (PPG) was active.

However there was one area of practice where the provider needs to make improvements namely:

• The practice should improve its recorded supervision for nursing staff who are independent prescribers.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice