The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Bilton Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

120 City Road, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD8 8JT (01274) 782080

Provided and run by:
Bilton Medical Centre

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bilton Medical Centre on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Bilton Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

21 April 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection at Bilton Medical Centre on 21 April 2022 Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Set out the ratings for each key question

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive - Good

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 30 January 2020, the practice was rated good overall and for the key questions safe, effective, caring and well-led but requires improvement for providing a responsive service.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Bilton Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a comprehensive inspection undertaken at the same time as the CQC inspected a range of urgent and emergency care services in West Yorkshire. We undertook this inspection to review the quality of care delivered by GP providers and the experience of people who use GP services. We asked a range of questions in relation to urgent and emergency care. The responses we received have been used to inform and support systemwide feedback. We also included additional questions to establish the practice response to access to appointments for patients following the COVID-19 pandemic.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews on the day of inspection
  • Using questionnaires sent to staff prior to the on-site visit
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • A shorter site visit

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as Good overall

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • The uptake of bowel, breast and cervical cancer screening at the practice was below national averages. However, we saw that ongoing actions were being taken to improve uptake and attendance.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • Staff from the practice were able to offer food bank vouchers to vulnerable patients. The team collected regular donations for vulnerable individuals including food, blankets and toiletries; they had raised funds for a local community kitchen and also volunteered to help at a local homeless resource. The practice had also developed a ‘Vulnerable persons directory’ which directed staff and patients to a number of support services and options. This included foodbanks, homeless services and debt counselling and support. Links on the practice website also directed patients to support as required.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Encourage and improve uptake rates for childhood immunisations.
  • Encourage and improve uptake rates for cancer screening programmes.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

30/01/2020

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Bilton Medical Centre on 31 January 2020.

We decided to undertake an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us. This inspection looked at the following five key questions, safe effective, responsive, caring and well led.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

•what we found when we inspected

•information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and

•information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as Good overall. However, we rated the practice as Requires Improvement for providing responsive services, as patient satisfaction regarding how easy it was to get through to the practice on the telephone and their experience of making an appointment were significantly below the local and national averages.

This impacted on all the population groups which were rated as Requires Improvement, with the exception of Vulnerable People which was rated as good.

We found that:

  • Using a ‘Plan, do, study, act’ cycle, numerous aspects of patient care had been comprehensively reviewed and individual plans put in place to improve outcomes for patients.

  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in an individualised and timely manner.

  • There was compassionate, supportive, inclusive and effective leadership.

  • The team had developed a ‘Knowledge Tree’ which was displayed in the staff office. This motivational display was a combination of information, descriptions and ideas to help staff support patients.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • Specific staff from the practice were able to offer food bank vouchers to vulnerable patients. The team collected regular donations for vulnerable individuals including food, blankets and toiletries; during a fun day in December 2019, they had raised £230 for a local community kitchen and also volunteered help at a local homeless resource. The practice had also developed a ‘Vulnerable persons directory’ which directed staff and patients to a number of support services and options. This included foodbanks, homeless services and debt counselling and support. Links on the practice website also directed patients to support as required.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Continue to improve the uptake of childhood immunisations at the practice and ensure that the World Health Organisation minimum target of 90% is met.

  • Continue to improve the uptake of cancer screening at the practice including breast, bowel and cervical screening.

  • Continue to respond to the GP Patient Survey so the practice can meet the needs of their patient population.

  • Continue to implement the recent good practice changes made to the forms and templates used for the therapeutic circumcision of male children.

  • Continue to update, review and record the immunisation status of the staff team.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

14 December 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Bilton Medical Centre on 10 May 2016. Overall the practice was rated as good. However, breaches of the legal requirements were found leading to a rating of requires improvement in the key question of Safe. After the inspection the practice wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the legal requirements in relation to the safety of the practice.

We undertook a focussed follow up inspection at Bilton Medical Centre on 14 December 2016 to check that the practice had met the requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

You can read the full comprehensive report which followed the inspection in May 2016 by selecting the 'all reports' link for Bilton Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

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

  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff who acted as chaperones had undertaken a Disclosure and Barring Service check (DBS). (DBS checks identify whether a person has a criminal record or is on an official list of people barred from working in roles where they may have contact with children or adults who may be vulnerable).
  • Vaccines were stored and managed appropriately in line with Public Health England guidance.
  • The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity, and we saw that these had been reviewed.
  • Patients who did not need to see a GP could be directed to the ‘Pharmacy First’ Scheme by reception staff who followed a clear protocol for this.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Where the non-therapeutic circumcision of male children is performed, (for religious or cultural reasons) the practitioner should continue to give consideration to British Medical Association good practice guidelines which state that “usually and where applicable both parents must give consent for non-therapeutic circumcision”.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

10 May 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Bilton Medical Centre on 10 May 2016. 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.
  • Patients said they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment and they had high levels of confidence in the GPs at the practice, when compared to Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and national averages.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, with the exception of those relating to the storage of vaccines.
  • The practice engaged with the local community and had been involved in local project fundraising events and a coffee morning for isolated people was scheduled for later in the month.
  • Some staff who had worked at the practice for a number of years were acting as chaperones without a Disclosure and Barring Service check (DBS). (DBS checks identify whether a person has a criminal record or is on an official list of people barred from working in roles where they may have contact with children or adults who may be vulnerable).
  • The majority of patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect.
  • The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity, but some were overdue a review.
  • Patients could attend the surgery at any time to check their own blood pressure with a machine which had been purchased by the practice and was situated in reception.
  • GP sessions were not consistently held on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday afternoons. The GP was on call for emergencies only.
  • The practice does not offer an early or extended hours clinic.
  • We were told of examples of reception staff asking clinical questions when patients rang for appointments, patients would then be directed to the Pharmacy First Scheme if the receptionist thought this was appropriate. This non-clinical intervention could potentially put patients at risk.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • The practice must ensure that all vaccines are stored and managed properly so that immunisations are carried out safely and efficiently in line with Public Health England guidance.
  • The practice must review the process of redirecting patients to the Pharmacy First scheme and ensure that this is safe and clinically led.

In addition the provider should:

  • Where the non-therapeutic circumcision of male children is performed, (for religious or cultural reasons) the practitioner should give consideration to British Medical Association good practice guidelines which state that “usually and where applicable both parents must give consent for non-therapeutic circumcision”.
  • The practice should ensure that all staff who act as chaperones for patients have undergone a Disclosure and Barring Service check (DBS).
  • Review the availability of pre-bookable appointments.
  • The practice should continue to review the results of patient satisfaction surveys and ensure that it can meet the needs of the patient population in the future and improve access.
  • The practice should review the number of available GP appointments and ensure that this meets patient needs.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

12 August 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Our inspection on the 11 October 2013 found the practice did not have robust systems in place which were designed to assess the risk of and prevent and control the spread of health care associated infections. Following the inspection the provider wrote to us and told us they would take action to ensure they were compliant with these essential standards.

At this inspection we found that improvements had been made. The provider had reviewed their policies and procedures and implemented new systems which assessed the risk of and prevented the spread of health care associated infections.

11 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We observed staff speaking with people on the telephone and in person. We saw staff were friendly, polite and offered choices to patients. We found that people who used the service were treated with dignity and respect. We spoke with three people who used the service; one said, "They do listen. The staff are a lot friendlier and very polite, I cannot fault them. I have raised a suggestion about having different time slots for those who are working and to try online appointments." Another person said, "I never get to see the GP I always seem to see the locum." Another person said, "I can ring early to get a same day appointment but have to wait as they always run late."

People who used the service were protected against the risk of abuse. Staff received training in abuse awareness and protecting children and vulnerable adults every six months. The policies and procedures were available to all staff in relation to safeguarding.

We saw the practice appeared clean and people who used the service told us the practice was always clean. However we found the practice did not have robust systems in place which were designed to assess the risk of and prevent, detect and control the spread of health care associated infection.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

There was an effective complaints system in place. Complaints people made were responded to appropriately.

We saw evidence the provider carried on two regulated activities but had not registered these with the CQC. We discussed this with the provider and the practice manager that under the Health and Social Care Act 2008, providers must, by law, register with CQC if they carry on a regulated activity. It was the provider's responsibility to make sure they are appropriately registered to carry on the activities they provided. The provider agreed to immediately submit an application to register for surgical procedures and maternity and midwifery services.