Menston and Guiseley Practice

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them with advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this. 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.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The practice supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice, and control. The practice supported people to live healthier lives, and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, and those with caring responsibilities. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity. The practice offered patients a range of health assessments which included NHS health checks, learning disability health reviews, and reviews for patients with ongoing mental health conditions. Data provided by the practice showed in the previous 12 months that 97% of patients on the learning disability register had been offered and undertaken a health review. Working with others the practice referred patients via social prescribing for additional support.

The practice routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive, consistent, and met the expectations of people themselves.

The practice either met or exceeded national targets for the uptake of childhood immunisations. We saw that 4 of 5 measures exceeded the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended rate of 95% for all routine childhood vaccinations, and 1 measure met the 90% minimum target. In addition, the practice performed better than the England average in relation to patient participation in national cancer screening programmes, including screening for breast, bowel, and cervical cancer. For example, 83% of eligible women in both age categories (25 to 49 years and 50 to 60 years) had undertaken cervical screening, this was above the national target of 80%. Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed that patients felt that the practice delivered care and treatment which met their needs. We saw that 99% of respondents felt that their needs were met during their last appointment, compared to local and national averages of 90%.

Earlier in 2026 we saw that the practice, working with other primary care network partners had taken part in a cancer peer review which sought to further develop and improve cancer services locally, and to also promote participation in national screening programmes. In addition, also working with their primary care network, the practice had implemented an approach to proactive care. This involved the identification of vulnerable patients who had 3 long-term conditions, and who were also assessed as having moderate to severe frailty. Patients were supported by a care coordinator, with clinical input, who developed a specific care plan for their needs, and made referrals, or offered signposting to other services. Appointments for this work were often undertaken in the patient’s own home. The practice had supported a cohort of 17 patients through this process. The practice told us that they felt this approach helped support more proactive and person-centred conversations and gave their team a better understanding of patients’ needs and how best to support them.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.