Windhill Green Medical 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

Patients were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information patients could understand. Patients 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. Patients received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training, feedback and the development of services to meet specific needs. Patients were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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 service made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Patients had access to appointments provided by clinicians including GPs, advanced nurse practitioners, members of the nursing team and pharmacists, 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, 94% 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 practice had moved to 15-minute appointments which they felt gave GPs and other staff more time to discuss the personal care needs of patients.

Staff had received additional training to support specific population groups, this included those with a learning disability or autism. At the time of our assessment the practice had 137 patients on their learning disability register. We heard from the practice how they had worked to identify and engage with patients with a learning disability and their carers, and families, and was flexible in their approaches to deliver care to this and other vulnerable groups. For example, patients received personalised invitations to annual health checks and reviews via telephone contacts, used easy read literature to facilitate understanding and uptake, and if required delivered checks and reviews at patient’s homes via their PCN proactive care team.

Care delivery reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Furthermore, 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 4 sites operated by the practice.

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 practice had undertaken a population health needs assessment and recognised the impact that certain conditions such as respiratory illness and diabetes had on the local population. In light of this, and to improve services, the practice redesigned their approach to the management of long-term conditions which involved changes to the patient recall process, and improvements to the nursing appointment model, with a movement to a digital first approach which enabled patients to receive SMS links and book themselves directly into appointments, and increasing the use of pre-appointment questionnaires to assess need and type of appointment required. At the time of our assessment these new interventions were being implemented within the practice.

The practice delivered care to a range of vulnerable patients. This included services to residents of care homes, and they had developed a team which supported 151 patients who resided in 5 care homes. Care support involved regular visits to assess and treat patients and meetings between practice staff and the care home management team. The practice used searches of clinical records to ensure patient needs were being managed effectively prior to each home visit and used another search to identify new residents to care homes to support a review of their needs moving forwards whilst under the care of the practice.

The practice worked closely with others to meet local patient need and via their primary care network and was able to access support for housebound patients, and via the proactive care team care for provision and planning for the very frail or vulnerable in the community who were at risk of deterioration. Other services open to patients included access to a range of community care services and social prescribers.

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

The practice had a detailed website which included news and updates, details of consultations and appointments including the NHS App and online access, and pages dedicated for their Patient Participation Group.

Adjustments were made to support the communication needs of patients; this included the use of translation and interpretation services, the availability of hearing loops at all sites, and the provision of easy read materials explaining care and treatment. Individual communication needs were noted on the patient’s record where relevant. Leaders and managers told us that they recognised some members of their population struggled with technology and said that staff were available to help patients if they needed individual support accessing information or understanding their care. We saw that information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

Many of the new service developments planned by the practice such as their new model of long-term condition care involved targeted communication and engagement with patients, ensuring they understood why they were being called and prompting participation.

The practice had processes in place to engage with, listen to, and involve patients in the care and treatment they received. There was an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) in place which met regularly, and which had been established for 40 years. We spoke with a member of the PPG, and they told us that practice staff engaged with them and actively sought their views and feedback. As an example, they told us that they had suggested that chairs with arms be made available in waiting rooms to assist patients to get into and out of them more easily and that these had been provided.

Overall patient feedback was positive with satisfaction being in line with local and national figures for most questions in the National GP Patient Survey. For example, the 2025 results showed that 89% of respondents said they felt healthcare professionals at the practice were good at listening to them. This compared to local and national averages of 97%.

The practice shared with us examples of how they had examined patient feedback and had taken action to improve as a result. The practice recognised that patients had reported difficulties getting through to the practice on the telephone. In light of this in December 2024 the practice had installed a new digital telephony system which included a callback function. This has not had enough time to impact on the National GP Patient Survey which was undertaken from January to March 2025. However, the practice has shared with us information which showed a dramatic fall in patients hanging up calls within 20 seconds from 3,115 in January 2025 to an average of 1,934 between February and June 2025. Other actions taken in response to feedback has included expanding digital access and direct booking opportunities for patients.

There was a complaints policy, and a complaints lead had been appointed. Staff we spoke with 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. We reviewed 3 complaints and found they were actioned in an appropriate and timely manner, discussed in meetings, and that learning was shared with staff. Both managers and staff told us how learning from complaints was used as an opportunity for improvement.

The service made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. All 4 practice sites were open from 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Additional extended access sessions were available to patients on Tuesday evenings 6.30pm to 9.30pm at Windhill Green Medical Practice, Thursday evenings 6.30pm to 9.30pm at a neighbouring primary care network (PCN) practice, and on Saturday 9am to 5pm at Windhill Green Medical Practice. Other extended hours services were available which included routine GP appointments, phlebotomy MIND counselling. These were provided by the Bradford Care Alliance (a community interest company consisting of shareholders from all Bradford GP practices).

A range of services and appointments were open to patients including routine, and acute GP appointments, advanced nurse practitioner and nursing team appointments and reviews, screening, vaccinations and immunisations, and minor surgery. Both Windhill Green Medical Practice and Saltaire Medical Practice offered 8 daily urgent care clinics staffed by GPs and advanced nurse practitioners. Home visits were also available via the PCN home visiting service. Consultations could either be face to face or via the telephone. Vulnerable and at risk patients received additional support from the PCN proactive care team.

Bookings and requests for services could be made in person, via the telephone, and by using the website or an NHS online consultation service. Staff at the practice had been trained in care navigation and were able to signpost patients to a range of other services which were appropriate to their needs.

Generally patient satisfaction with access was in line with local and national averages. Although as noted previously only 40% of patients reported that it was easy to contact the practice by telephone (compared to 51% locally and 53% nationally), and only 37% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice using their website (compared to 50% locally and 51% nationally). We saw that this had been recognised by the practice and a new telephony system with a callback function had recently been installed, and the website had been updated. Data showed improvements in performance data for telephony including a reduction in dropped calls and callback showing a 98% connection rate. For a practice population of around 24,300 patients, we saw data which showed that numbers of appointments had risen from 11,469 in the 4 weeks from 15 April 2024, to 13,861 in the 4 weeks from 14 April 2025.

Continuous improvement and service developments were evident in the practice in respect to access and effectiveness. At the time of our assessment the practice was implementing a new approach to delivering long-term condition reviews, and in September 2025 the practice was also planning on expanding access via their non-urgent NHS online consultation service.

Physical accessibility into sites was good, with car parking, including parking for the disabled being available.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide tailored care, support and treatment in response to this, targeted at greatest need.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity of experience and outcomes. This included the use of interpreters, and providing longer appointments where needed.

The practice delivered services either solely or in conjunction with others to better meet the requirements of some of their most vulnerable or complex patients. For example, they supported 151 patients who resided in 5 care homes. Services included regular site visits, ad hoc call outs and structured meetings with care home managers to ensure services were appropriate or if changes were required. This support was delivered by a dedicated team of clinicians to maintain continuity of care. The practice ran routine searches to ensure care needs were recognised and that new patients were identified. Working with their primary care network (PCN – which was composed of the practice and one other provider), patients had access to a home visiting service and a proactive care team (PACT). The latter, focused on the needs of the very vulnerable and sought to support them within their home environment and prevent deterioration and admission into step up care. Evidence indicated the PACT and other services working with the practice was making a real difference to patients’ lives. For example, in respect of end of life patients, these patients had fewer attendances at accident and emergency, made less calls to 999, and fewer contacts for out of hours palliative care support.

The practice was an active participant in several projects and strategies which were designed to improve engagement with hard to reach groups and through this improve health outcomes. These included the Minuteful Kidney Project to enhance ACR (Albumin-to-Creatinine Ratio) testing (a urine test used to detect early signs of kidney damage, particularly in individuals with hypertension and diabetes). The project saw testing kits being sent to the homes of patients who have been hard to engage with, with the results being integrated into their clinical record. The project saw 1,527 kits being sent to eligible patients, and 1,124 (74%) completing a test, placing the practice in the top 10 participating practices nationally. Results from these tests showed 414 patients (37%) had abnormal results which led to further ACR testing. Other work has included applying behavioural science approaches including nudge behaviour to increase cervical screening uptake, and taking part in a project to improve attendance at 2-week cancer wait appointments through offering pre-paid bus tickets to patients to reduce non-attendance.

Projects and initiatives were supported by a positive approach to education and awareness raising amongst staff. We saw that the practice had held an education session specifically focused on tackling health inequalities.

The practice offered health checks including NHS health checks, new patient checks, and learning disability health checks. In the previous 12 months we saw that the provider had undertaken 800 NHS health checks which met their 20% target of those who were eligible to receive one. We heard how the practice had also worked to improve take up of learning disability health checks with searches of records used to identify patients and personalised calls used to invite patients in for reviews and health checks.

Feedback provided by patients using the service, both to the practice as well as national surveys and to the CQC, was positive. For example, 90% of the respondents to the National GP Patient Survey in 2025 reported that their needs had been met. This was in line with local and national averages of 90%.

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 saw that staff understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision making when patients were making decisions for their future care needs and had access to policies and advice to support them.

Care planning, including palliative care planning processes were embedded within the practice. We saw that the practice worked with patients, their carers, 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.

Staff told us how they worked with patients, and their carers, 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.