Broughton House GP 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 patient’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our last inspection, we rated this key question as Requires Improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

This service scored 79 (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 patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. The practice demonstrated that they understood the needs of their local population and had a good understanding of the practice’s demographics, challenges they faced and systems in place which placed patients at the centre of care.

The practice ensured that care records reflected the physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients. Accessible standards and barriers to care were considered for patients, with alerts added to medical records so that the staff were aware the person had additional needs.

The National GP Patient Survey (2025) showed high levels of patient satisfaction, which had improved since our last inspection in 2023. For example, we saw that 92% of patients felt the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at treating them with care and concern (national average 86%), 95% had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to (national average 93%), and 98% felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment (national average 91%).

In addition, we saw 91% of patients found the reception and administrative team at the practice helpful (national average 83%). Compliments received by the practice and reviewed as part of our assessment showed that patients thought the reception team were helpful, attentive and efficient.

The practice understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. There were systems and processes in place to ensure patient’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs. The practice held registers of different patient groups, including those with a learning disability and carers. The practice registered patients with no fixed abode by using the practice as their address.

The practice demonstrated how they had responded to patient feedback about continuity of care and had enabled patients to access some allocated appointments with the extended clinical team at the provider’s other GP practice location which enabled more timely and consistent care.

The practice met regularly with other stakeholders to discuss and support patients who were vulnerable or who had complex needs, which included end of life care multi-disciplinary team meetings.

The provider worked in close collaboration with other partners including their primary care network (PCN).

The practice provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual patient needs. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the practice met the Accessible Information Standard.

The practice utilised multiple channels to share information, including their website, social media, information boards and leaflets, ensuring patients were kept informed through accessible and convenient means. The practice website had the functionality to translate to other languages and included up-to-date information about opening times, out of hours information, patient registration, how to access care records, clinics and services, and health information and support.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey (2025) showed that 95% of patients knew what the next step would be within 2 days of contacting their GP practice (national average 93%). In addition, 99% of patients felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment (national average 92%).

The practice made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Feedback from the National GP Patient Survey (2025) showed that 94% of patients felt the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at listening to them (national average 87%).

There was an effective complaints process in place which included a complaints lead and a policy. Information about how to complain was available on the practice website and there was a patient complaints leaflet. We saw that between January and December 2025 there had been 6 written complaints. We reviewed complaint records and saw complaints were actioned in an appropriate and timely manner, discussed in meetings, and learning shared. Where appropriate, patients were provided with an apology and signposted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). The practice was aware of their duty of candour and to be open and honest when things went wrong.

The practice routinely asked patients to complete the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) feedback forms and reviewed the feedback for any trends or themes. We saw the FFT data collected by the practice for the period January to December 2025, of which there were 375 responses, showed 91% of patients found the practice to be very good (258) or good (84). Feedback and compliments received by the practice indicated that patients felt staff were kind, friendly, patient and supportive.

We saw from minutes of practice meetings that patient feedback was regularly discussed with staff and used as an opportunity to celebrate positive comments, drive continuous professional development or make improvements, where appropriate. In particular, we saw that the clinical team had acted upon some patient feedback about feeling rushed in a clinical consultation and used the opportunity in a clinical meeting for reflection and peer learning around time management, active listening and ensuring patients feel heard.

The practice had systems in place to enable patients to access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The practice’s core opening hours were 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday, with early appointments being available Monday, alternate Wednesdays, Thursday and Friday from 7.30am. In addition, extended access is provided locally by Curo Health, where late evening and weekend appointments are available at locations in the area.

Bookings and requests for services could be made in person, via the telephone or using online forms. Appointments available to patients included urgent/on the day appointments, routine appointments and home visits. Patient appointments included face-to-face and telephone consultations.

The practice operated a daily duty doctor system. Processes were in place regarding the assessment and triage of appointment requests made online by patients. Staff had been trained in care navigation, which was supported by guidance, procedures and safety netting to ensure care decisions were safe and suitable to meet the needs of the presenting patient.

Since our last inspection the practice had installed a new telephony system which had call metric functionality to monitor call waiting times and abandonment rates. The practice had used this data to deploy staff to times of high demand. The telephone system also had a call back facility which had been welcomed by patients.

Patient satisfaction around access had significantly improved since our last inspection in 2023. The latest National GP Patient Survey (2025) outcomes were above the national average and had improved significantly since the outcomes of the 2023 National GP Patient Survey which we had reviewed at our last inspection. We found 65% (national average 53%) responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice by phone, compared to 15% in 2023 and 83% (national average 70%) responded positively to the overall experience of contacting the practice, compared to 25% in September 2023.

The practice attributed the improvements to a whole team effort and commitment of staff to improve their patients’ experience. The practice had adopted the modern general practice model of same-day urgent triage which made processes faster and simpler. However, they maintained patients’ preferences and ensured patients could contact the practice in a way that worked for them whether that be in person, by telephone or online. Feedback and compliments received by the practice in relation to access indicated that patients had noted improvements in communication and access to care. The improvements the practice had made had been acknowledged in an article posted by NHS England – North-East and Yorkshire.

To further enhance access and support patient engagement, the practice worked with a local third sector registered charity whose community champions held weekly digital drop-in sessions to guide patients on downloading, navigating, and using the NHS App to manage appointments, prescriptions, and results. Patient feedback confirms that these sessions have improved confidence, understanding, and the ability for patients to self-manage their care.

We saw from the National GP Patient Survey that 47% responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice using their website (national average 51%) and 44% responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice using the NHS App (national average 49%).

The practice understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and delivered equitable care to patients. Systems and processes were in place to assist in identifying patients who may need extra support. This included alerts on patients records to show what support they needed with communication such as interpreters.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people.

The practice was a ‘veteran friendly’ practice which was a national scheme to improve medical care and treatment for former members of the armed services. Information was available on the practice website.

During our assessment, we looked at how the practice adapted and provided care to people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable, which included people with a learning disability. In particular, we looked at how the service ensured that care, support and treatment met the needs and preferences of these individuals. We spoke with the lead nurse who told us they had engaged with Kirklees Adult Learning Disability Health Service to review their register to ensure that those on the register had been included appropriately. Appropriate reasonable adjustments were in place which included communication support materials and use of health passports. We saw staff had completed learning disabilities and autism training at a level relevant to their role, which included face-to-face and interactive training sessions, co-produced and co-delivered by people with a learning disability and autistic people, in line with recent updated guidance.

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care while they had the capacity to do so. Decisions and choices made by people were documented and reviewed as required. Patients at the end of life were reviewed in multi-disciplinary team meetings. Staff understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision making when patients were making decisions for their future care needs, and had undertaken training, for example, Mental Capacity Act.