Wetherby Health 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.

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

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 patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Patients had access to appointments provided by clinicians, as well as additional support via their primary care network (PCN), and referral to other specialist services.

The National GP Patient Survey results from 2025 showed overall satisfaction which was in line with local and national averages. For example, during their last general practice appointment, 92% of respondents stated they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. This was slightly above the local and national average of 91%. The provider offered 15-minute appointments which they felt gave clinicians time to discuss specific care needs with patients. This appointment time could be extended for patients with more complex needs. The provider was able to refer patients in need of additional support to advocacy services.

From our review of training records, we saw that staff had received additional training to support specific population groups, this included those with a learning disability or autism, or with identified long-term conditions and who required more specific support.

Care delivery reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act, and reasonable adjustments were applied when appropriate to facilitate good care and treatment. The practice respected the individual preferences of patients, and whenever possible when making an appointment patients were able to choose either a face to face or telephone consultation, and the location of their appointment at 1 of the 2 local sites operated by the provider.

The service had a thorough understanding of the diverse health and care needs of their patient population, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. For example, the provider had examined the needs of the patient population. As part of this work, it had recognised that geographical isolation and deprivation as a significant challenge. As a result of this it had worked to develop and host a range of services which would better meet patient needs. It had also identified on taking over the contact of the need to improve recall and monitoring processes for patients in receipt of specific medication and/or had long-term conditions, and new procedures had been put in place as a result.

The practice delivered care to a range of vulnerable patients. This included services to residents of a residential care home, and had a number of housebound patients. Working with their primary care network they had established teams to deliver necessary care to these groups of patients. Other services open to patients included access to a range of community care services and social prescribers hosted within the practice.

Booking and appointment capacity and access allowed for good continuity of care, with patients having some choice of clinician whenever this was possible, and clinicians being able to directly book in patients for follow-up appointments with them.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We saw that the practice website was detailed and user-friendly. It contained key information which included details of opening times, prescription ordering advice, details of available services and clinics, and how to raise concerns.

Staff told us that they were able to support patients to access digital resources such as helping patients understand and log onto the NHS App.

Whilst digital information routes were utilised by the practice, we also saw that more traditional information sources were also available to patients. This included leaflets, and information displayed on the many noticeboards located within the 2 sites.

The practice had access to interpretation and translation services, including British Sign Language. We saw that information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard and patient communication needs were noted on the patient record.

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 that overall patient feedback was positive regarding the provision of services and the treatment and care that they received at the practice and satisfaction levels were generally in line with or slightly above local and national averages. For example, 89%of respondents National GP Patient Survey in 2025 said that the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment compared to local and national averages of 87%.

There was a complaints policy, and a senior manager had been appointed as a complaints lead. Staff we spoke with clearly understood the complaints process and how to assist patients with any complaints or concerns they may have. Information on how to complain was also available on the practice website. In the previous 12 months the practice had received 21 complaints for both locations they operated locally. We examined 3 of these complaints in detail and saw that they had been handled appropriately. Investigations had been carried out and resulting learning measures put in place. The provider informed us that they sought to identify common themes to drive improvement and prevent recurrence. Themes over the past 12 months included appointment access and delays to referrals. In both these cases the provider had taken appropriate actions.

Information regarding complaints was available to patients which outlined the complaints process and included details of other contacts and escalation routes.

The provider actively sought patients feedback, sources of this feedback included the NHS Friends and Family Test, internal patient survey activity, and reviewing compliments and concerns, and assessing results from the National GP Patient Survey.

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

The service was open from 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday. Bookings and requests for services could be made in person, via the telephone, text, online, and using an NHS approved software platform. Appointments available to patients included urgent/on the day appointments, routine appointments and home visits. The practice had systems in place which ensured there were appointments available on the day, with some appointments slots being embargoed for later use and others being available to clinicians for direct booking. Patients were given the choice whenever possible of either a face-to-face consultation or a telephone consultation. Choices were also available to patients about which of the 2 GP locations, either in Wetherby or at Bramham, they wished to attend. Staff had been trained in care navigation and were able to direct patients to more suitable and appropriate services such as local pharmacies, mental health support and social prescribers. Care navigation triage was supported by an escalation protocol to ensure serious conditions were recognised, and that patients received appropriate care. Support was available for vulnerable and digitally excluded patients.

In addition to appointments at the practice, by working within their primary care network (PCN) patients had access to extended hours services.

The provider hosted or was able to refer patients to a range of other services which included PCN social prescribers, physiotherapy support, and screening services including abdominal aortic aneurysm screening.

The National GP Patient Survey 2025 results showed that 49% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice via the telephone compared to a local average of 51% and a national average of 53%. In addition, patients reported that it was easy to contact the practice via the website (60%) and via the NHS platform (77%) both of which were significantly above local and national averages. The practice had recently undertaken a patient access survey which showed 56% of respondents found telephone access easy, and 69% of respondents either found it easy or were neutral about the ease of scheduling an appointment. Overall, 92% of respondents rated their experience of the service as very good or good.

Telephone data submitted for Wetherby Health Centre, Bramham Medical Centre, and another practice operated by the provider outside the immediate locality showed that the average waiting time for a telephone appointment pick up was 6 minutes and 38 seconds. The practice telephony system offered patient call back, and staff were able to monitor queues and allocate additional staff to pick up calls at peak times and when required to meet excess demand. The provider monitored performance measures in relation to access including call answering times and online triage processing.

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.

Overall feedback provided by people using the service was positive. For example, results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed that 94% of respondents felt that their needs were met during their last general practice appointment. This was above the local and national averages of 90%. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not have access to the internet.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including their own primary care network to address any local health inequalities and improve outcomes. This included the offer of extended hours services and support for residents of a local residential care home.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Examples, of actions included access to longer appointments, and the provision of interpretation and materials. Staff had also received training in providing care and support to patients with more complex needs including autism and those with a learning disability.

Our remote searches showed that patients with long-term conditions or at risk of developing a long-term condition were recalled and reviewed appropriately. The provider offered NHS health checks to support population health improvement, and delivered health reviews and checks to vulnerable patients including those with a learning disability. Data from the provider showed that in the previous 12 months the service had undertaken health reviews on 96% of the 25 patients they had identified on their learning disability register.

The provider recognised the importance of carers and kept a register of those with primary caring responsibilities. Carers were offered additional support such as vaccinations, and referral to social prescribers. We were informed that the provider had identified 118 patients as carers (1.6% of the practice population).

Patients 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. We found that staff understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision making when patients were making decisions for their future care needs.

Care planning, including palliative care planning processes, were in place within the practice and was effectively managed. We saw that the practice worked with patients, and other stakeholders to ensure that effective care was being provided. The provider kept a palliative care register, and we saw that patients on the register were reviewed regularly in conjunction with other health and care providers, and internally staff could discuss patients at their daily huddles, as well as at clinical meetings. The dispensary delivery service supported the despatch and receipt of medication to vulnerable patients.

Staff told us how they worked with patients, their carers, and care providers to support their understanding of their future care options. We saw that ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) forms were completed in line with guidance. This information was shared with other services when necessary.