Kingswood 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

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

The most recent data from The Friends and Family Test showed that 99% of feedback was positive, with the vast majority rating the service as very good or good. We also received positive feedback from patients who told us they felt listened to and that staff were professional and helpful.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Home visits were available for those assessed as not being able to attend the surgery, providing continuity of care to these patients.

There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare providers such as the Integrated Neighbourhood Team and the PCN.

As well as clinical staff, patients had access to a range of other healthcare professionals including a midwife (for antenatal and postnatal care) and a counsellor. In addition, the service also offered dedicated clinics for diabetic patients and patients with asthma. A full range of advice and family planning services was also available.

A social prescriber attended the service one day per week to connect people with community-based support, including activities and services that met practical, social and emotional needs that could impact on patients’ health and wellbeing.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs.

Their website was available in multiple languages and staff had access to interpreter services. The service could also provide information in braille, large print or ‘easy read’ format if needed, or through communication support like British Sign Language interpreters or other assistive technologies.

Arrangements were in place to ensure compliance with the Accessible Information Standard.

Patients were informed via the website as to how to access their care records online.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 99% of patients knew what the next step would be after contacting the practice. This was above the 83% experienced by patients locally and the 86% experienced nationally.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. For example, people could provide feedback via reception, via a suggestion box in the waiting room or in writing to the practice manager. People were also encouraged to give feedback online, through the NHS Friends and Family Test.

Complaints were managed in line with the service’s complaints policy. Learning from complaints was evident and some staff could identify changes made because of patient feedback, including complaints.

There was a patient participation group (PPG) who confirmed that the service had engaged with them previously and that they had been able to comment on proposed changes. Although at the time of our visit, the PPG had not met since October 2024, the practice manager was trying to rectify this and was actively trying to recruit new members and schedule a meeting.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed, when they needed it.

It was open from 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and offered routine appointments on Thursday evenings between 6.30 and 7.30pm for patients who may be unable to access the surgery during working hours. We saw on the day of our visit that appointments were still available for GPs and nurses for that day.

Outside of surgery hours, an enhanced access service was available for patients via the Yorkshire Health Network. This offers pre-bookable, evening and weekend appointments with a range of healthcare professionals.

People could access the service to suit their needs, for example, online, in person and by telephone and the percentage of respondents to the National GP patient survey who responded positively to their overall experience of contacting the practice was 88%, significantly above the local average of 72% and national average of 70%.

The percentage of respondents who responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone was also significantly above the local and national averages (78% v 53%).

73% of respondents also stated that it was easy to contact the GP practice using their website (local average 57% and national average 51%); and 75% of respondents also stated that it was easy to contact the GP practice using the NHS app (local average 54% and national average 49%).

Telephone response rates were monitored by the service, and a patient call-back option was also in place which meant that callers did not need to wait to speak to reception staff.

Treatment rooms were all on the ground floor and an automatic door was in place at the entrance. A lift was in place to take patients to the second-floor nurses’ rooms and, although this was out of order at the time of our visit, a contingency plan was in place – patients were able to use the lift belonging to the dental practice which shared the building.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the service as well as to CQC, was mostly positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations to address any local health inequalities.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

The service had processes to ensure people could register with them, including those in vulnerable circumstances. Noone had been refused registration in the last 12 months.

Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including people where English was not their first language and people who did not have access to the internet.

The service was an Armed Forces Veteran Friendly Accredited GP practice. This meant that there was a clinical lead for veteran health who undertook regular training to better understand the needs of veterans and support veterans to access dedicated health services.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 91% of patients felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment. This was slightly above the 90% achieved locally and nationally.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.

Five patient records were reviewed where a DNACPR (do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation) decision or ReSPECT (recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment) form was in place. All patients were flagged appropriately on the patient’s clinical record following notification of the decision. Where Respect forms had been completed by surgery staff, a copy was held on the patient’s clinical record as per best practice.