The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr's H.C. Ash, K.A. Harris & J.E. Hirst Also known as Dearne Valley Health Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Dearne Valley Health Centre, Wakefield Road, Scissett, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, HD8 9JL (01484) 862793

Provided and run by:
Dr's H.C. Ash, K.A. Harris & J.E. Hirst

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 15 April 2026. Dr’s H.C. Ash, K.A. Harris J.E. Hirst, also known as Dearne Valley Health Centre, is a GP practice which delivers services to approximately 4,600 people under a contract held with NHS England. According to the latest available data, the ethnic make-up of the service area is approximately 97% White, 0.8% Asian, 1.7% Mixed, 0.2% Black and 0.2% Other. Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows deprivation within the service population group is in the 9th decile (9 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the service population is relative to others.

This was a focused assessment. We undertook this assessment due to the length of time since our last assessment. We assessed 10 quality statements from across all 5 key questions. 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.

There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Staff kept facilities clean and maintained equipment appropriately to ensure people were kept safe. However, there were some gaps in how the practice assessed and managed the risk of infection. Staff supported people to live healthier lives, monitoring their care and treatment to ensure they received positive and consistent outcomes. Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, and respected their privacy and dignity. People could access care, treatment and support when they needed it. Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage groups of people who used the service and sought ways to address any barriers. The service had a clear vision and strategy, which considered the needs of the people who used their service and the wider community. Staff understood their individual roles and responsibilities. Leaders accounted for the actions, behaviours and performance of staff through clear and effective governance processes.

8 October 2019 to 8 October 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Dr’s H.C. Ash, K.A. Harris & J.E. Hirst on 8 October 2019. The practice was previously inspected by the Care Quality Commission in November 2015, when it received a rating of Good overall, and for all population groups.

We carried out an inspection of this service due to the length of time since the last inspection. Following our review of the information available to us, including information provided by the practice, we focused our inspection on the following key questions: are services effective and are services well-led.

Because of the assurance received from our review of information we carried forward the ratings for the following key questions: are services safe, are services caring and are services responsive.

We based our judgement on 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
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as good overall and good for all population groups.

We found that:

  • There was evidence of quality improvement, which included a comprehensive programme of audit and performance management.
  • Patients received structured reviews of their care and treatment and received advice and support to manage their symptoms. Care planning was detailed and considered the specific needs of patients. The practice ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence based guidelines.
  • The practice was above the national target for the uptake of childhood immunisations and cancer screening programmes.
  • The practice had implemented succession planning measures. We saw that processes were in place to develop and support both clinical and non-clinical staff to develop their roles.
  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes. Learning from incidents was shared with others to prevent recurrence.
  • Services had been developed to meet the specific needs of their population.
  • The practice worked with others at a locality level to plan and develop services.
  • Staff told us they felt supported and valued by the leadership team at the practice.
  • The Patient Participation Group was active and worked closely with the practice management team.

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

  • Review and seek to improve performance in relation to cancer two week wait performance.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS MDedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

4 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Drs D Seeley, HC Ash and KA Harris (known as Dearne Valley Health Centre) on 4 November 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment, there was continuity of care and urgent appointments were available on the same day as requested.
  • Longer appointments were given to those patients who needed them.
  • Information regarding the services provided by the practice was available for patients.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat and meet the needs of patients.
  • There was a complaints policy and clear information available for patients who wished to make a complaint.
  • The practice sought patient views how improvements could be made to the service, through the use of patient surveys, the NHS Friends and Family Test and the patient participation group.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed. There were good governance arrangements and appropriate policies in place.
  • The practice was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour. (The duty of candour is a set of specific legal requirements that providers of services must follow when things go wrong with care and treatment.)
  • There was a culture of openness and honesty, which was reflected in the approach to safety. All staff were encouraged and supported to record any incidents using the electronic reporting system. There was evidence of good investigation, learning and sharing mechanisms in place.
  • There was a clear leadership structure, staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and told us the GPs and manager were accessible and supportive.

There were two areas where the provider should make an improvement:

  • Ensure there is a locum information pack in place and made available when a GP locum is used.
  • Ensure there is a consistent approach to recording in patients’ notes when a chaperone is used.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice