• Doctor
  • GP practice

Jorvik Gillygate Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Woolpack House, The Stonebow, York, North Yorkshire, YO1 7NP (01904) 724343

Provided and run by:
Jorvik Gillygate Practice

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 20 March 2026 to 24 March 2026.

Jorvik Gillygate Practice is a GP practice in York. It formed following the merger of two practices (Jorvik Medical Practice and the Gillygate Surgery) in November 2014. The main practice site is based in the centre of York at Woolpack House with two branch practices at South Bank and East Parade, York.

During this assessment we visited Woolpack House and the branch site at South Bank.

Jorvik Gillygate Practice delivers services to 27,240 patients under a contract held with NHS England. Some of these are registered with the practice via the NHS Special Allocation Scheme. This scheme ensures that people who have been removed from a practice list, often for aggressive or violent behaviour, can continue to receive appropriate care at an alternative location. Jorvik Gillygate is the only practice within York who provide this service.

Jorvik Gillygate Practice is currently registered with CQC to provide diagnostic and screening procedures, family planning, maternity and midwifery services, surgical procedures and treatment of disease, disorder, or injury. It is also a training practice for medical students training to be doctors and for fully qualified doctors training to be GPs.

The practice was last assessed in December 2015 and was rated ‘Good’ overall.

The National General Practice Profile states that the ethnic make-up of the practice patient population is 90.7% White, 5% Asian and 4.3% Black, Mixed Race or Other.

Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 9th decile (9 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.

For SAFE:

Jorvik Gillygate Practice had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were mostly protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks 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.

Although there were some good systems and processes in place, there were areas identified that required review with regard to medicine management.

For EFFECTIVE:

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 to make decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

While the practice mostly had effective systems in place to monitor patient outcomes, monitoring of some patients with long term conditions and those on certain medicines required review.

For CARING:

People were treated with 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 exceptionally well.

For RESPONSIVE:

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 practice had an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) who the provider worked with to promote patient engagement, health awareness and support vulnerable groups in the community. The practice was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The practice 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.

For WELL-LED:

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. While many governance processes were well established, certain areas were identified which required review in order to strengthen oversight and monitoring.

Managers worked with the local community and collaborated with partners to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a strong culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.

9 December 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Jorvik Gillygate Practice on 9th December 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • 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.
  • The practice provided easy access to appointments with on the day appointments available to all patients.
  • 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.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

  • The practice supported individuals allocated via the Alternative Medical Scheme from the ‘violent patient list’ where other practices had removed a patient from their list. This ensured vulnerable patients had access to the full range of services.

  • One GP partner worked with local psychiatric services on assessments enabling closer liaison with hospital and community psychiatrists. This provided direct links to mental health services to support patients living in the community.

  • The practice welcomed patients who were being rehabilitated into the community working in collaboration with the York association for care and resettlement of offenders.

  • The practice provides support to patients with drug addiction alongside ’Lifeline’ drugs support services.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice