- GP practice
Killamarsh Medical Practice
Report from 21 February 2025 assessment
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 26 – 30 September 2025.
Killamarsh Medical Practice is a GP practice and delivers services to 8,494 people under a contract held with NHS England. We carried out an assessment of this service because it has not been inspected since 14 December 2015. The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnic make-up of the practice area is 97.4% white, 1.3% mixed, 0.8% Asian, 0.3% black and other 0.2%. The age distribution of the practice population shows there is a higher number of older people registered with the practice and a lower number of working age and young people. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 8th decile (8 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.
The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood risks although some of the required risk assessments were not in place. The provider sent us evidence that they had been completed or had planned completion dates. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers updated their training matrix to include additional training in response to findings during our assessment. Staff received regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care and a formal system of clinical supervision for non-medical prescribers was introduced. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.
People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking into account people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Outcomes for people were positive and consistent. National screening indicators regularly exceeded expectations. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people to make decisions in people’s best interests when they did not have capacity.
Feedback from people was mixed regarding being treated with kindness and compassion. Where issues with staff attitudes had been identified, appropriate action had been taken. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The practice had been awarded the Carer Friendly Practice Quality Mark in recognition of the support provided to carers. The service proactively supported staff wellbeing.
People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand although this was not always coded appropriately in their records. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. Patient feedback showed that the service was not always easy to access. The provider had made changes to improve this. People received fair and equal care and treatment. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.
Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Governance processes needed to be strengthened to support the management of the service. Managers and staff worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.
People's experience of this service
There was mixed feedback from people about the quality of their care and treatment. The most recent National GP Patient Survey showed that 5 of the 6 indictors we looked at relating to care and kindness and access to appointments were below the national averages. The provider had reviewed the indicators and put an action plan in place to address the issues highlighted. In contrast, feedback from the NHS Friends and Family Test, showed people were satisfied with services.
There was an active patient participation group (PPG) who represented the views of people using the service. A representative from the PPG described how managers had made positive changes in response to their feedback. For example, a new telephone system to improve telephone access to the practice.