Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Guiseley and Yeadon Medical Practice on 23 November 2016. We focused our inspection at the main site in Yeadon, however we also visited the branch site in Guiseley as part of our inspection. The overall rating for the practice was good. However; we rated the practice as requires improvement for providing safe care. The full comprehensive report on the inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Guiseley and Yeadon Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was a desk based review carried out on 28 March 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the issues that we identified in our previous inspection on 23 November 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

The practice has now met the legal requirements in the key question of safe and is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

• The practice had held a meeting in February 2017 in which all significant events from the previous 12 months were discussed

• The practice had contacted patients with a written apology as a result of significant events.

• The practice had introduced a recruitment checklist to ensure all relevant checks were carried out prior to confirmation of job offer.

• The practice had scheduled appraisals for all staff and these were due to be completed by May 2017.

We found one area where the provider should make improvements:

• Deliver the timetable in place for staff appraisals in order to improve the support provided to staff to carry out their duties.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Guiseley and Yeadon Medical Practice on 23 November 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows

• 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.
• 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.
• The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• 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 areas where the provider must make improvement are:

• Carry out full investigations as a result of incidents and significant events and make sure that any learning from these is clearly documented and shared with all relevant staff.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Review and follow the practice’s recruitment policy when appointing new members of staff into roles at the practice. Accurate records should be kept with regard to references requests made and received by the practice for new members of staff.
• Deliver the timetable in place for staff appraisals in order to improve the support provided to staff to carry out their duties.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

We spoke with three patients at the practice. They said the doctors were courteous and explained things well, including the risks and benefits associated with their treatment.

Patient’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Patient's records included details of when they had an appointment at the practice, details of the consultation, diagnosis and treatment.

The practice had put in place procedures to safeguard patients from the risks of abuse. One of the doctors had been nominated to act as the lead on safeguarding issues. Safeguarding information was displayed in the waiting area. Staff had attended safeguarding training and were able to describe types of abuse and give examples of signs of abuse, such as unexplained bruising, failure to thrive or neglect.

Staff told us they felt well supported by the doctors at the practice and the staff were “Supportive of each other.” They felt they could ask for advice at any time. They were encouraged to attend training courses and supported to obtain further qualifications.

Patients were complimentary about the staff but had differing views about the appointments system. One patient told us the new walk-in system, “Was a good idea.” They said previously it had been hard to get an appointment at the practice. However, another patient told us they could still wait up to two weeks to get a routine appointment at the practice.