The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Tadcaster Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Crab Garth, Tadcaster, North Yorkshire, LS24 8HD (01937) 530082

Provided and run by:
Tadcaster Medical Centre

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 21 May 2026.

Tadcaster Medical Centre is a GP practice and delivers services to approximately 9,500 people under a contract held with NHS England. According to the latest available data, the ethnic make-up of the service area is approximately 97.3% White, 0.9% Asian, 1.2% Mixed, 0.3% Black and 0.3% Other. Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows deprivation within the service population group is in the 9th decile (9 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the service population is relative to others.

This was a focused assessment. We undertook this assessment due to the length of time since our last assessment. We assessed 10 quality statements from across all 5 key questions. 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.

Staff kept facilities clean and maintained equipment appropriately to ensure people were kept safe. They assessed and managed the risk of infection well and took steps to control the risk of it spreading. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience.

Staff supported people to live healthier lives, monitoring their care and treatment to ensure they received positive and consistent outcomes.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, and respected their privacy and dignity.

People could access care, treatment and support when they needed it. Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage groups of people who used the service and sought ways to address any barriers.

The service had a clear vision and strategy, which considered the needs of the people who used their service and the wider community. Staff understood their individual roles and responsibilities. Leaders accounted for the actions, behaviours and performance of staff through clear and effective governance processes.

23 October 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an inspection of this service due to the length of time since the last inspection. Following our review of the information available to us, including information provided by the practice, we focused our inspection on the following key questions:

  • Is the service effective
  • Is the service well-led

Because of the assurance received from our review of information we carried forward the ratings for the following key questions:

  • Is the service safe
  • Is the service caring
  • Is the service responsive

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 and good for all population groups.

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • 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 organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. 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.
  • The practice dealt with extremely challenging times due to flooding. Their emergency plans were very effective and patient care was not compromised as a result.

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

  • Review and Improve the way in which sharing of significant events is carried out so that any learning that was needed will become embedded within the practice.
  • Review and Improve the way two-week wait referrals are monitored.

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

2 June 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an inspection of Tadcaster Medical Centre on 2 June 2015, as part of our comprehensive programme of inspection of primary medical services. The inspection team found after analysing all of the evidence that the practice was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led. It was rated as good for all of the population groups.

Our key findings were as follow:

  • The practice is safe. 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.
  • The practice is effective. Patients received care according to professional best practice clinical guidelines. The practice had regular information updates, which informed staff about new guidance to ensure they were up to date with best practice. According to the data from Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), an annual reward and incentive programme showing GP practice achievement results, outcomes for patients registered with this practice were above average.
  • The practice is caring. Patients reported the positive view they had of the doctors and staff at the surgery. Practice staff knew their patients well. We received many examples of how their GPs acted ‘over and above’ their expectations from them; these included contacting patients over the weekend and home visiting after accidental deaths. The practice ensured patients received accessible, individual care, whilst respecting their needs and wishes. The QOF indicators showed that patients felt listened to and involved in decisions about their care and this was similar to other practices in the area.
  • The practice is responsive. The appointment system was guided by internal audit and evaluation of the needs and views of the patients. Urgent needs were addressed on the day and the patients in general were able to see the GP of their choice. Although some expressed concern about not being able to see the GP of their choice at a time convenient for them. The service had positive working relationships between staff and other healthcare professionals involved in the delivery of service.
  • The practice is well led. The management team reflected upon the services they provided and actively explored ways of improving health and care outcomes. Quality and performance was monitored and risks were identified and managed.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

  • The practice as part of SHIELD (The Selby Area Federation of GP Practices) had won an innovation fund, to develop social prescribing. This fund was used initially to support the local voluntary service to produce an up to date data base of available voluntary social care organisations. Patients were then referred to the most appropriate services.
  • The practice was pro-active and reactive to managing patient access, their needs and expectations. All patients who wanted a same day appointment were called back and only triaged by the GP. Over 75 years of age patients always had a same day appointment if needed.
  • The practice used the term Query–Doc for the GP who had a shortened morning surgery to ensure all correspondence was read and dealt with on the day. This assured any changing or emerging health needs of patients were responded to effectively and efficiently.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice