You are here

Drs. Vautrey, Bearpark, Cunliffe, Chida, Hayes, Spencer, Hodgson, Izon, Ghirotto & Fineberg Good Also known as Meanwood Group Practice


Review carried out on 8 July 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Drs. Vautrey, Bearpark, Cunliffe, Chida, Hayes, Spencer, Hodgson, Izon, Ghirotto & Fineberg on 8 July 2021. 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 Drs. Vautrey, Bearpark, Cunliffe, Chida, Hayes, Spencer, Hodgson, Izon, Ghirotto & Fineberg, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 14 May 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Drs. Vautrey, Bearpark, Cunliffe, Chida, Hayes, Spencer, Hodgson, Izon, Ghirotto & Fineberg on 14 May 2019. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

Inspection carried out on 9 March 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Meanwood Group Practice on 9 March 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led care for all of the population groups it serves.

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 was in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice 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 were involved in care and decisions about their treatment.
  • The practice sought patient views how improvements could be made to the service, through the use of patient surveys, the NHS Friends and Family Test and the patient reference group.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff were supported by management.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
  • Staff were supported to attend role specific training and updates. For example; a salaried GP at the practice was being supported through an ENT diploma at the time of our inspection.
  • The practice focused on pursuing hard to reach groups to involve them in diabetic education sessions, this was supported by a specialist dietician.
  • The practice were committed to ensuring information was entered onto the clinical system on the same day as it was received to ensure accurate information was available at all times. There was a system and dedicated time for daily correspondence and results management.
  • The practice used the Leeds Care Record to ensure information regarding health and social care was easily accessible.

We saw areas of outstanding practice:

  • The practice took a proactive approach to monitoring and management of risks to patients. The practice had carried out a risk assessment for each room within the practice and involved all staff members in this process. There was also a dedicated reporting form which staff were required to complete if any hazard was noticed. For example; faulty light switches and trip hazards.

  • The practice had introduced a system of home monitoring for patients with hypertension. This enabled the patient to carry out tests at home, which helped to reduce the stress of undertaking tests in a clinical environment, and supported management of self-care.

  • Additional services were provided at the practice for registered patients and those who were referred from other practices. For example; minor surgery, non-benign gynaecology and an ear nose and throat clinic. These services were overseen by hospital consultants, reducing the number of patients attending hospital appointments and giving patients the choice to access care closer to home.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice