Garforth Medical Practice

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. We saw that the provider was working to develop improved ways of working to meet increased patient demand, and had services in place to meet the specific needs of patients.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

It was clear from discussions with staff that their main aim was to ensure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Patients had access to a wide range of services either delivered centrally by the practice, or services such as Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm screening hosted by the practice. Some staff had received advanced training which allowed them to give enhanced care in areas such as diabetes and women’s health. Results from the National GP Patient Survey 2025 showed that patient satisfaction regarding their involvement in their care was in line with local and national averages. The provider worked closely with other stakeholders and partners to deliver person-centred care. This included working with 4 local care homes delivering care and treatment to over 120 patients. Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. If required, we were told that patients could access longer appointments to meet their specific needs. This included those with complex needs or those with a learning disability.

The provider clearly understood the health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. For example, they recognised the needs of their ageing population and worked both within the practice and with others to provide services which better met their needs. This included the provision of home visits, supporting patients who lived within care homes settings, and undertaking patients hospital discharge assessments. Working with their primary care network they were able to access the services of a specific frailty team to support some of their most vulnerable patients. The provider saw continuity of care as important and sought to accommodate the wishes of patients whenever possible. This was supported by results from the National GP Patient Survey which showed 46% of respondents state that they usually got to see or speak to their preferred healthcare professional. This was above the local average of 38% and the national average of 40%. We saw that staff monitored referrals such as those for suspected cancers and followed these up when required.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to the needs of the individual. This included the provision of translation and interpretation services, and providing patients with information in different formats, languages and print sizes. Individual needs regarding communication were noted on the patient record. We saw that the website was clearly understandable with an auto-translation function into several languages, and which contained up-to-date information on, opening times, patient registration, complaints and how to access services including out of hours and urgent care services. We saw at both sites that information posters were displayed, and information leaflets were available regarding other health and care services. The provider recognised that some patients were struggling with the use of digital technology such as the NHS App, and their online consultation tool. In response to this they held an NHS App awareness event, and had appointed a staff member to act as a champion to support patients with their online consultation tool. Staff from the practice had also visited a local college to speak to new students regarding accessing care services and new patient registrations. Other activities aimed at improving population knowledge and awareness included health information events. We discussed the safe sharing of information and found staff to have good knowledge of information governance, data protection, and confidentiality.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 89% of respondents said that the last healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them compared to the local and national average of 87%. The provider had measures in place to gather, assess and action patient feedback. For example, the service had an established Patient Participation Group (PPG) with a core of dedicated members. The PPG representative we spoke with told us that they felt respected and listened to by the provider, and had received updates from the practice on key areas of work such as appointment access and website improvements. We also saw that the provider routinely sought patient feedback following an appointment. Overall patient feedback was positive. For example, May 2025 NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) feedback showed that 90% of respondents found their experience at the practice to be either very good or good. We were told by the provider that the practice received around 550 to 600 FFT responses per month. The provider used feedback constructively and utilised it to improve services. They told us they were aware of some local concerns regarding accessibility, and as a result of this had examined actions to improve capacity and patient access. This included actions such as allocating more staff to answer telephone lines at peak times, supporting patients with online appointment booking and using the NHS App, and increasing capacity through the recruitment of additional clinical staff. Information was available to patients to inform them how to raise a concern or complaint with the service. The complaints process was supported by a comprehensive complaints policy, and a complaints lead had been appointed to manage the investigation of issues. Staff we spoke with clearly understood how the complaints process worked, and we able to assist patients with any complaints. Information on how to complain was also available on the practice website and in the practice information leaflet. We reviewed 2 complaints in detail during our assessment and found they had been dealt with in an appropriate and timely manner. We saw that complaints were reviewed and discussed at team meetings, and that learning was shared with staff.

The service offered a range of appointments to patients which included face-to-face consultations, telephone consultations, and home visits. The main site at Garforth Medical Practice was open from 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday with appointments available from 8.30am to 6pm. The Elmwood Surgery branch site was open from 8.30am to 5pm Monday to Friday, though closes between noon and 12.45. Appointments were available at the Elmwood Surgery from 8.40am to 4.40pm. Bookings and requests for services could be made in person, via the telephone and using NHS online consultation services. The practice had systems in place which ensured there were appointments available on the day, and patients were given the choice whenever possible for either a face to face consultation or a telephone consultation, and a choice of which site to attend. The service also worked within their local primary care network (PCN) and through this patients from the practice were able to access evening and weekend appointments. The provider hosted several other health and care services which included PCN social prescribers and wellbeing staff such as a health and wellbeing coaches. In addition, they had access to other NHS support, and screening services such as abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. In respect to direct access to services feedback was mixed. For example, 46% of respondents to the 2024 National GP Patient Survey found it easy to get through to the GP practice by telephone compared to the local average of 51% and the national average of 53%, whereas 55% of patients found it easy to contact the practice via the NHS App, slightly above the local and national averages of 49%. As part of our assessment, we received 188 Give Feedback on Care responses from patients. Of these, the vast majority were positive about the practice citing friendly, efficient and supportive staff, and some noting the ability to access services when they required it. However, 28 responses mentioned difficulty in contacting the practice and getting access to appointments. This issue had been recognised by the provider who had looked at this in some depth, including as part of their participation in the National General Practice Improvement Programme in 2023. Key actions taken since then have included working to reduce avoidable appointments through improvements in patient knowledge, and signposting to more appropriate services, examining frequent attenders (those making 4-24 appointments per year) and managing these more effectively, allocating additional staff to answer telephone calls at peak periods. For example, allocating 9 staff (previously 7) to answer calls on a Tuesday morning, which had been identified as a peak period. To support this decision the provider had undertaken an extensive telephony audit. In addition, the provider had worked to increase the numbers of patients able to access services through both the NHS App and appointments through online booking via their online consultation tool. The provider had hosted events to promote online take up, and supported patients who had struggled to use these tools. Results were positive, and we saw that in the previous 12 months that the number of patients registered to use the online consultation tool had risen from 9,176 to 12,289. The provider had also taken steps to increase clinical capacity, and we saw that by September 2025 7 additional GP sessions would be available per week.

The service understood the importance of providing an inclusive and tailored approach to care and treatment, and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experiences and outcomes. We saw that patients were supported by the practice through their care journey, with patients given the choice of how to access the service and being offered continuity of care whenever possible. For example, 46% of patients who responded to the National GP Patient Survey said that they usually get to speak to their preferred health professional when they would like to. This was slightly above the local average of 38% and the national average of 40%. The provider had dedicated staff members to deliver specific care to patients locally, this included a practice matron who delivered home visits, and an advanced nurse practitioner who supported over 120 patients who resided in 4 care homes. The service was also able to work with several local community teams such as frailty and home support teams for additional patient care. Patients with additional needs were supported, and we saw that in the previous 12 months 95% of patients with a learning disability had received an annual health check and review. When needed vulnerable patients or those with complex needs could access longer appointments and could access these at quieter, less busy times. Communication needs were accommodated, and translation and interpretation services were available, as were hearing loops. From a review of staff records we saw that staff had received equality and diversity training, and had received specific care navigation training to signpost patients to services most appropriate to their needs. As well as dealing with direct health needs, the provider was able to support patients who had other wider wellbeing and social concerns and were able to refer then on to other support services such as social prescribers and wellbeing coaches.

Patients were supported to plan for important life events, this included at the end of their life. Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary. Elderly or vulnerable patients were able to access enhanced services via the practice. This included home visiting, support from a frailty team operated by their Primary Care Network, an intermediate care service delivered by Leeds Health Care Partnership, and if a care home resident by regular clinician visits. Access to these services enabled advanced care planning, and when required end of life planning, and for support to be available to those in most need.