• Doctor
  • GP practice

Goodheart Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Bransholme Health Centre, Hull, North Humberside, HU7 4DW (01482) 823377

Provided and run by:
Goodheart Surgery

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 13 May 2025 to 21 May 2025. Goodheart Surgery is a GP practice and delivers services to 6,401 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that 97% of the practice patient list is white, 0.82% Asian, 0.81% Black, 1.27% Mixed and 0.51% other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the first decile (1 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and most risks had been mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff mostly managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes. However, there were areas for improvement relating to recruitment, recording clinical supervision, identification and management of infection prevention and control (IPC) risks, monitoring and recording medicines fridge temperatures, authorisation of patient group directions (PGDs) and ensuring patients were aware of the risks of their prescribed medicines. The provider addressed these concerns immediately.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable

them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people who took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity. However, there were areas for improvement in relation to coding patients records effectively, assessment records for patients with asthma prescribed steroids and do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) records. The provider made immediate improvements to address these areas.

People were treated with exceptional kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing. All the staff told us they were valued by leaders and all staff were very positive about the support they received and the positive work environment.

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People 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. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders 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 culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.

22 March 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Goodheart Surgery on 22 March 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • 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. This means providers must be open and transparent with service users about their care and treatment, including when it goes wrong.

We saw some areas of outstanding practice including:

  • A palliative care coordinator was responsible for all aspects of communication and support for patients on their list. The palliative care coordinator also liaised with other agencies in the locality to arrange supported respite care for patients and family members. Staff had attended funerals of patients that had passed away to support direct family members and their relatives.

  • The practice had developed a support plan called ‘caring hands’. This included sections for palliative patients and patients with learning disabilities to identify their specific needs for example; ‘what’s important to me’, ‘how best to support me’ and ‘what does a good and bad day look like for me’. This allowed the practice to keep an on-going record of patient’s direct and changing health care support needs.

  • The practice had developed ‘language cards’. These were available in different nationality formats with a patient’s own nationality flag to identify them and had common health related questions for the patient to identify.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice