Windhill Green Medical Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders and senior managers were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a strong culture of partnership working and continuous learning, improvement and innovation.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. At this assessment we found that some of those areas previously regarded as outstanding practice were now embedded throughout the majority of GP practices. Whilst the provider had maintained this good practice, the threshold to achieve an outstanding rating had not been reached. The practice is therefore now rated good for providing well-led services.

This service scored 82 (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 had developed a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of patients and their communities.

Leaders, managers and staff we spoke with all showed a focus on providing high quality, patient-centred care. The practice had a good understanding of the challenges faced in the delivery of the vision and worked to put in place measures to meet these challenges. For example, they were acutely aware of the need to meet rising demand, and the complex needs of an ageing population. In response to this they planned to increase their GP capacity, and through the use of validated and approved technology, and through new ways of working.

Staff we spoke with and received feedback from informed us that the practice had a supportive and positive culture and that teams within the practice, and across all 4 sites worked closely together. This view was echoed by a primary care network staff member who worked with the practice.

We found that the practice had inclusive leaders and managers at all levels who clearly understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support. We saw that leaders and managers had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, and we saw they did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

As part of our assessment, we held interviews with staff from all levels in the organisation, and received questionnaire feedback from those we could not directly speak with. From this feedback we heard that leaders, senior managers and line managers were supportive, approachable and inclusive. These views were supported by a follow up survey conducted with staff in 2023 as part of the Healthy Practice Programme. For example, 84% of staff felt they would be listened to by leaders if they raised concerns. In addition, 78% of staff responded that leaders in the service practiced what they preached.

We saw the management team worked closely with the other provider in their primary care network (PCN) and Bradford Care Alliance and were engaged in the development and delivery of primary care services within the local area.

The practice recognised and effectively planned for the loss and retirement of key staff and partners, and we saw that succession planning measures were in place. This included forward financial planning, specialist recruitment, and the identification of staff for future development to act as possible replacements.

The service fostered a positive culture where patients felt they could speak up, and their voice would be heard. The practice had put into place freedom to speak up arrangements, and staff we spoke with or received written feedback from knew how and who to contact if they had a concern that they wished to discuss with them. There was a freedom to speak up policy, and the subject had been covered in training and at team meetings. Freedom to speak up and other related topics such as grievance and whistleblowing processes were also outlined in the practice handbook.

Managers told us that they had an open-door approach which allowed staff to raise concerns with them directly, and this was corroborated by feedback we received from staff. The majority of staff told us that they felt that leaders and managers were approachable, and that they felt issues would be listened to.

We saw evidence which showed that the practice valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

We saw that there were key policies and procedures in place to promote diversity, equality, and the protection of staff. This included a lone worker policy, zero tolerance policy and grievance and whistleblowing policies and procedures.

Staff were able to discuss their careers and any concerns or opportunities at regular appraisals and less formal one-to-ones and ad hoc meetings. We saw that 92% of staff who responded to the 2023 Healthy Practice Programme reported that they received an effective appraisal at least once a year, though there had been a small fall in satisfaction from 2022 from 82% to 76% for staff feeling valued by their leaders. The practice was seen to be supportive of training and staff development. In addition, we saw that staff had been offered reasonable adjustments and flexibilities to support their individual wellbeing.

The practice told us that they had a culture of consulting with staff when wishing to make changes to services, or other actions which could impact on their working lives. For example, they consulted with salaried GPs regarding moving appointments times from 10 minutes to 15 minutes and similarly consulted with the practice nurse and healthcare assistant teams regarding the changes to their model for long-term condition management and hub working.

The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver high-quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. The practice acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The practice leadership and management team had developed a detailed and comprehensive management structure which covered all areas of service delivery. In addition to clinical duties partners had lead roles across the organisation such as safeguarding and prescribing. The structure was supported by performance monitoring and quality assurance processes.

We saw good governance processes were firmly established across the practice. This included a comprehensive meeting structure which drove forward good communications as well as supporting service delivery and development. Meetings included fortnightly partner meetings, weekly management team meetings, monthly clinical and long-term condition meetings, as well as monthly individual team meetings. On a daily basis the practice held short duration huddles to discuss operational issues such as capacity and staff issues. Minutes from meetings were detailed and carried the appropriate level of information. These were stored on their digital management platform which was available to all staff.

Staff we spoke with clearly understood patient confidentiality and took information security seriously.

The practice had a disaster recovery plan which had been reviewed in July 2025. We saw that this had been put into place during the course of our assessment due to a significant IT outage across the locality. We saw that this had been managed well, and this was confirmed by feedback from the integrated care board (ICB). Actions taken included setting up meetings to ensure strategic communications were maintained across the 4 sites, organising additional support for clinicians and key staff, and forward planning the delivery of services such as clinics. These actions ensured that on call surgeries were maintained, with cancellations to routine appointments only being necessary when patient records became inaccessible and safety was seen to be compromised. During the incident recovery phase, we saw that the practice prioritised actions based on patient needs. For example, a team worked through a backlog of patients requiring the notification of test results. The practice is planning to implement learning from the event and are also feeding back into the ICB review of the incident.

The practice demonstrated a clear approach to environmental responsibility. As examples, they worked with their respiratory team to reduce the prescribing of metered dose inhalers due to concerns regarding non-environmentally friendly propellants, had invested in green technology such as solar panels and air source heat pumps, and decided to reduce the sending of non-electronic correspondence.

The practice clearly understood and carried out their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, and we saw that services were planned and delivered effectively for patients, carers and others. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated with others to drive improvements.

The provider worked within their primary care network (PCN) to offer additional or enhanced services which included extended access, home visiting and support for extremely vulnerable patients via their PCN proactive care team. Their local PCN, Bradford North also known as WISHH (Windhill, Idle and Saltaire Happy and Healthy) consisted of only 2 practices, the Saltaire and Windhill Partnership and Idle Medical Practice. We saw that the practice took an active role in the management of the PCN, with 1 of the GP partners acting as the clinical director. Information and data shared with us by the practice showed the significant impact of some of these joint services. This included reduced calls to other primary care and urgent care services.

The PCN also utilised the services of a dedicated pharmacy team who undertook a range of medicines related services such as reviews and local cost-effectiveness prescribing work. The prescribing lead from the practice met on a monthly basis with the pharmacy team to discuss performance, learning and service improvement. Other PCN led activities and services included access to physiotherapy services, MIND mental health coaches, and the trialling of a mental health nurse practitioner based at 2 of their sites.

In addition to the integrated working undertaken with their PCN we saw that the practice collaborated with, and supported, other organisations to deliver improved care and treatment outcomes. These included partnering with a national palliative care organisation as a pilot site for their Responsive Emergency Assessment and Community Team (REACT). The team supported palliative care patients to avoid hospital or hospice admission, enabling them to remain stabilised in their own home, and supporting them when they transitioned to other services. Feedback on this service has been very positive, and initial data suggests the positive impact (in conjunction with the PCN’s own proactive care team) of this service in reducing calls to services such as out of hours doctors’ services or 999 calls.

The practice worked closely to coordinate care with others. We saw for example, that the clinicians met regularly with managers of care homes that they supported.

The service had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local health and care system. They frequently encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for patients. They actively contributed to safe and effective practice developments and supported research.

Organisationally, in 2022 the practice had piloted the Healthy Practice Programme which sought to improve communication and cultures within GP practices. They had used the findings to identify and implement improvements within the service. As part of this work a staff survey was undertaken. This was repeated in 2023 to assess any changes and showed an improvement in 26 out of 32 question categories. Positive effects on staff wellbeing and team culture included those related to; team meetings and improved communications, a move to 15-minute appointments, and improvements to the work environment. The practice told us they planned to repeat this exercise to ensure improvement was supported to continue.

The practice had a programme of quality improvement activities which included clinical and non-clinical audits, clinical supervision, and regular searches of the clinical system to ensure compliance with best practice principles. This approach to improvement was bolstered by the implementation of learning from significant events, near misses, complaints, and feedback from patient surveys and their patient participation group.

Learning was evident across the practice. As well as supporting the training of GPs and medical and nursing students, there were processes in place to support learning and personal development. For example, the practice held monthly educational meetings. These discussed new learning, audits, and cases of interest. Staff we spoke with during our assessment said that they found these learning opportunities valuable, and told us they felt that these sessions improved clinical knowledge and practice.

Working with their primary care network, we saw that the practice had developed and implemented a number of innovative support services such as their proactive care team to support some of their most vulnerable patients.

Senior staff from the practice supported the development of wider community services. This included being active members of the Bradford Care Alliance.

We saw that the practice worked with others to deliver services within their locality for the benefit of their patients and others referred to them. Services included partnering with 2 ophthalmology consultants from their local Foundation Trust and a nearby optometrist to deliver hydroxychloroquine eye screening (used for the early detection of retinopathy). Other services on offer to patients included musculoskeletal and physiotherapy support, ultrasound services, audiology, and access to a hosted prescription drug dependence counsellor.

Clinical research was actively supported. The practice had appointed a research lead which ensured standards in research were adhered to and followed best practice principles. We saw over the 2 to 3 years the service had been involved in research and the development of innovative practices related to the safe use and prescribing of penicillin, improving the take up of testing for the identification of kidney damage in hard to reach patients. In addition, it was supporting a study of antibiotic prescribing for urinary tract infections and working with a team from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The practice also told us that they were assessing a number of potential studies they were looking to be involved in.