Menston and Guiseley 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

This was a focused assessment, which meant we did not assess all quality statements. Our rating is determined from the findings of both this assessment and our previous assessment(s). At our last assessment, we rated this key question as outstanding and this remains unchanged due to the focused nature of this assessment. However, updated quality statement scores have been issued where relevant.

This service scored 100 (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 Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service performed better than the national average in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. This showed people could access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the service’s website. For example, 91% of respondents found it easy to get through to the practice by phone, compared to a local average of 51% and a national average of 53%. Furthermore, 86% of respondents to the survey described their experience of contacting the practice as good, which was well above the local and national averages of 70%. The practice closely monitored calls and appointment data to effectively manage demand and capacity planning, and actual delivery. Information shared with us showed that in early 2025 the practice offered an average of around 4,400 appointments per month for a practice population of around 12,100 patients. Patients had access to appointments and support from the practice during regular opening hours, and via extended and weekend working arrangements delivered in conjunction with other partners.

The practice had a number of routes for patients to contact the practice to request access to services, this included booking in person, via telephone and digitally. They also operated an open access system for patients with urgent or emergency needs when patients could directly attend the practice and have their attendance triaged without a prior appointment. Patients we spoke with greatly valued the urgent/emergency walk-in access. We also saw that the practice prioritised the needs of vulnerable patients, for example young children, and whenever possible saw these patients on a same day basis after assessing their needs.

The practice gave us several examples of how they sought to assist patients to have better access to services through making reasonable adjustments. This included individual support for a patient who had specific needs to introduce them personally to their new named clinician, and also, following feedback, giving greater choice to mental health patients in how their regular reviews were undertaken, with a number of patients preferring telephone contacts. As part of the practice’s frailty work, we saw that patients were often supported with home visits or via telephone reviews, to save them needing to travel to the practice.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support, and treatment.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with services, including those within the local health and voluntary sectors, to address any local health inequalities.

The practice understood the specific needs of their population, especially the needs of their growing number of elderly patients. In light of this this they had adopted some innovative approaches to better support those patients. This included, in 2024 contacting dementia patients and their carers to gain their views. Their feedback was used to inform services such as the need for flexible appointments, the sending of appointments reminders, being supportive of patients who missed appointments, and promoting the role of their care coordinator to better meet patient needs. Work in this area also included the practice becoming dementia friendly and training staff in dementia awareness. Another activity included developing a structed approach to manage patients living with frailty. Identified patients were prioritised for personalised care planning, and were supported to complete ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment is a personalised, written document detailing a person’s preferences for clinical care in a future emergency, specifically when they cannot make decisions) forms to ensure that their care was aligned with the wishes. Of 49 identified patients being supported by the practice as part of this work in 2025/26, we saw that 94% had a completed collaborative care and support plan in place, and 75% had had a ReSPECT form agreed and completed.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.