Valley View Surgery

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

The practice had a good understanding of the needs of its local population. There was an integrated approach to patient care, and services worked well together. Complaints were actioned appropriately and learning shared with staff. The practice’s results for the National GP Patient Survey 2025 indicated that patient experience of access was generally lower than local and national averages. The practice had installed cloud-based telephony and told us they felt this had greatly improved recent patient satisfaction in regard to access. The practice did not carry out its own patient surveys. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in people’s experiences and outcomes.This key question has been rated as Good.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Discussion with leaders showed that they understood the needs of their local population. They demonstrated a good understanding of the practice’s demographics and the specific challenges they faced.

Staff told us that they involved patients in their care and treatment. They told us they did this by having discussions and by providing patients with the support they needed to understand, for example by offering support with any communication needs.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, the practice had started working with an organisation to help identify and organise adult immunisations.

Where referrals were made to external services, these were monitored and followed up appropriately. There was an integrated approach to patient care, and services worked well together.

The practice website contained information on, for example, opening times, prescription ordering, patient registration, clinics and services, and complaints.

Reasonable adjustments were made at the practice to support communication, including the use of interpretation services and the availability of a hearing loop. Individual communication needs were noted on the patient’s record where relevant. Leaflets were available in the practice reception area and posters were displayed to provide patients with information.

There was an access to records policy and an information governance policy in place, and staff undertook training on data protection.

Staff told us about the different ways that patients could share feedback and raise complaints. This included the NHS Friends and Family Test and the complaints process. The practice did not carry out its own patient surveys. They told us that this is something they planned to start doing.There was an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) in place which met quarterly. PPG meetings were also often attended in part by members of the practice, including the practice manager and social prescribers.

There was a complaints policy and lead in place. Staff we spoke with understood the complaints process and how to assist patients with any complaints or concerns they may have. Information on how to complain was also available on the practice website. We reviewed 2 complaints in detail and found they were actioned in an appropriate and timely manner, discussed in meetings, and learning shared with staff. Where appropriate, patients were provided with an apology and signposted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

The practice’s results for the National GP Patient Survey 2025 indicated that patient experience of access was generally lower than local and national averages. For example, of 102 respondents, 27% (an increase of 10% from 2024) said they found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone compared to the local average of 51% and national average of 53%. In addition, 52% (an increase of 19% from 2024) felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last general practice appointment compared to the local average of 69% and national average of 67%.

The practice had installed cloud-based telephony and told us this had greatly improved patient satisfaction in regard to access, as it had seen a marked reduction in the number of complaints about access in the last 12 months. Members of the practice’s patient participation group also provided positive feedback about the telephone system, and in particular, the call-back system. The practice also told us they had updated their website to improve patient access and engagement, and that they had plans in place to engage with patients via social media platforms.After the assessment the practice produced a brief business plan; this included plans to improve access through, for example, further staff training and promotion of the NHS App.

The main practice opening times were Monday to Friday 8.30am to 6pm. Appointment types included telephone and face to face. Appointments could be booked on the day by telephone, online, or in person where applicable. The practice offered a limited number of pre-bookable appointments which could be booked up to 3 weeks in advance. The practice offered home visits and urgent appointments for patients where appropriate. Extended access appointments were available to patients on evenings and weekends at practices across Bradford and was run by Bradford Care Alliance. Telephone lines were covered by Local Care Direct Limited from 8am to 8.30am and 6pm to 6.30pm on weekdays.

There was a large car park with disabled parking bays. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and the practice was wheelchair accessible.

The practice held registers of different patient groups, such as carers and those with a learning disability. The practice also held a list of patients and families who had been identified as requiring extra support, and these patients were prioritised and offered flexibility where possible.

Interpretation services were available for patients who did not have English as a first language. Information leaflets and posters were available around the practice, some of which were available in other languages. Information about support services was available on the practice website.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in people’s experiences and outcomes. For example, longer appointment times were offered where needed and home visits were carried out for housebound and vulnerable patients.

Staff received equality and diversity training and care navigation training to signpost patients to services most appropriate to their needs. Staff had not completed learning disability and autism training, and we were told that this was in progress. Health checks, including new patient checks, were offered to patients. Support with using online services was offered to those patients who needed it and we saw that the practice was taking part in a digital inclusion project to address any digital barriers faced by patients.

Clinicians understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision making, and had access to policies to support them. Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. The practice had 13 patients on their palliative care register, and these patients were reviewed in monthly multi-disciplinary meetings. Staff told us how they worked with patients, and their carers, to support them to understand their options regarding Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions. We saw that DNACPR and ReSPECT forms were completed in line with guidance and with the input of patients, and when necessary, their carers.