The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Frizinghall Medical Centre Also known as Frizinghall Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

274 Keighley Road, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD9 4LH (01274) 495577

Provided and run by:
Frizinghall Medical Centre

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Frizinghall Medical Centre on 6 July 2023. 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 Frizinghall Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

02 June 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced inspection at Frizinghall Medical Centre on 2 June 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Following our previous inspection on 22 March 2019, the practice was rated as good overall and good in all five key questions. However, the practice was rated as requires improvement for providing services to people within the population group of long-term conditions.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Frizinghall Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this review.

This was a follow-up review of concerns identified during the last inspection in March 2019.

The focus of this review was.

  • To review the services provided to people with long-term conditions and the outcomes for these patients using the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) performance.
  • To review the processes for documenting actions taken as a result of safety alerts.

How we carried out the inspection.

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

Our approach included:

  • A short visit and onsite staff interviews
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • Reviewing performance data available at the time of our inspection.

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • What we found when we inspected
  • Information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • Information from the provider and other organisations.

This practice remains rated as good overall. Following this focused review, we have rated the practice as good for providing care for the population group, long-term conditions.

We found that:

  • Effective social distancing arrangements and infection prevention and control (IPC) measures were in place, including access to personal protective equipment (PPE). This enabled patients to attend face-to-face appointments for long-term conditions safely.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • At this inspection we found that outcomes for patients with long-term conditions had improved. The practice had significantly improved their processes for the management of long-term conditions. Patient recalls were continually audited and additional opportunities to attend were offered. Each patient contact was used to encourage and educate patients to manage their own health, attend reviews and agree goals with clinicians.
  • Outcomes for patients were generally comparable to, or better than, the local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and national averages.
  • At the inspection in March 2019, we said the practice should review and improve their process for documenting action taken as a result of safety alerts. At this inspection we found the practice had developed an application for documenting and responding to patient safety alerts. The programme alerted clinicians when deadlines for management of the alerts were approaching. This enabled the team to respond in appropriate timescales, monitor the alerts and audit their own performance. We saw that links within the programme connected the clinician to the original alert. Alerts were available to all staff and actioned in a timely manner.
  • Data supplied by the practice showed that over 90% of patients who were diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension or COPD had received one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and over 81% of patients had received two doses.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Continue to review and support patients to manage their diabetic care.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

22 Mar to 22 Mar 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Frizinghall Medical Centre on 22 March 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as good overall and good for five of the six population groups. We rated the population group ‘people with long-term conditions’ as requires improvement due to performance against some of the diabetes and hypertension indicators.

The practice was previously inspected in November 2014 and were given an overall rating of good.

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should :

  • Review and improve the process for documenting action taken as a result of safety alerts.
  • Review and improve achievement against the Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators for patients with diabetes and hypertension.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

26 November 2014

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We inspected Dr Jandu and Partners at Frizinghall Medical Centre on the 26th November 2014 as part of our new comprehensive inspection programme. Our inspection team was led by a CQC Inspector and included a GP specialist advisor and an Expert by Experience.

We have rated the practice as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • There were comprehensive systems to keep people safe. The whole practice team was engaged in reviewing and improving safety and safeguarding systems. Innovation was encouraged to achieve sustained improvements in safety.
  • There was a holistic approach to assessing, planning and delivering care and treatment. Innovative approaches to care and how it was delivered were encouraged.
  • Staff recognised and respected the totality of patient’s needs, including their personal, cultural and social needs.
  • There was a proactive approach to understanding the needs of different groups of patients and to deliver care in a way that met their needs. This included people who were in vulnerable circumstances or who had complex needs.
  • Patients could access appointments and services in a way and at a time that suited them.
  • There were high levels of staff satisfaction. Staff were proud of the organisation as a place to work and spoke highly of the culture.

We saw two areas of outstanding practice:

  • Children with very complex needs were assigned a named GP and a named receptionist whose role was to assist with liaison with other services.
  • The effectiveness of the practice’s approach to identifying, following up and managing serious illnesses, including cancer referrals, was evident from local performance data which showed it was significantly better than most other practices.

However, there was also an area of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

  • The provider should ensure there is a system to check that patient safety alerts have been acted upon.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice