The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Kiveton Park Medical Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Kiveton Park Primary Care, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S26 6QU (01909) 770213

Provided and run by:
Kiveton Park Medical Practice

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 24 to 29 September 2026

Kiveton Park Medical Practice is a GP practice and delivers services to approximately 12,059 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The main site is at Chapel Way, Kiveton Park, Sheffield, and there is a branch practice (Harthill Surgery) at Woodall Lane, Harthill, Sheffield, S26 7YQ. The Harthill Surgery provides a dispensary service to those patients who are eligible.

According to the latest available data, the ethnic make-up of the service area is approximately 96.8% White, 1.2% Asian, 1.2% Mixed, 0.6% Black and 0.3% Other.

Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 7th decile (7 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.

FOR SAFE:

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. 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 made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. However, some areas of medicine management required review.

FOR EFFECTIVE:

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving between services. 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 where they did not have capacity.

Care was not always based on latest evidence and good practice as the provider had not taken action in response to medicine alerts with regard to advising patients of risks associated with certain medicines.

FOR CARING:

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.

FOR RESPONSIVE:

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

FOR WELL-LED:

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. Managers 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.

However, while many governance processes were well established, certain areas were identified which required review in order to strengthen oversight and monitoring.

20 February 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Kiveton Park Medical Practice 9 December 2015. The overall rating for the practice was good but with requires improvement for safety. The full comprehensive report for the 9 December 2015 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Kiveton Park Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 20 February 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 9 December 2015. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice is rated as Good.

Improvements had been made since our last inspection on 9 December 2015. Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice had obtained all the necessary recruitment checks to ensure employees were of good character prior to employment.

  • Records had been improved to clearly identify the actions taken in response to significant events and safety alerts.

  • An infection prevention and control (IPC) audit had been completed and IPC systems had been improved.

  • Written procedures for monitoring and recording the temperature of vaccine fridges and records of temperature checks had been developed and implemented. However, action taken when temperatures were outside the recommended ranges had not been recorded.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

9 December 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Kiveton Park Medical Practice on 9 December 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events. Records of actions taken could be improved.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed although some aspects of infection prevention and control (IPC) and records for monitoring temperatures of vaccine fridges could be improved.
  • The provider had not obtained all the information required, prior to recruitment of staff, to ensure the person was of good character.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based 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 they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • The practice provided a drop in service for patients aged between 12 and 25 years known as UCount2. The service was also available to patients from other local practices. The service had been provided for the past 15 years in response to demand in the local community and was guided by a committee which included young people from a local school. The service was situated away from the main waiting room in a separate building in the grounds of the practice to promote confidentiality. The service was provided by a nurse practitioner who had completed relevant additional training for this role. The nurse worked closely with the GPs, youth counsellor and youth worker to provide services twice a week during term time. The service included treatment, support and advice for sexual and health screening, teenage pregnancy, alcohol and drug use, relationship issues, eating disorders, mental health issues, sexual exploitation and minor illnesses. The nurse worked with parents and schools to support the young person as required. For example, in the case of a teenage pregnancy the nurse would offer to liaise with parents/carers at the surgery or at home to discuss support and follow-up care. We saw communication from the CCG which showed this service had been identified by the CCG as one of the key strengths of the practice. The CCG had also stated that the outcomes for young people using the service were good and that the teenage pregnancy rate for the area was low.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • The provider had not obtained disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks prior to employment for staff such as nurses and a phlebotomist who worked alone with patients.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Records, including meeting minutes, did not always clearly identify the actions taken in response to significant events and safety alerts.

  • There were some shortfalls in IPC systems. For example, sharps bins were not signed, clinical waste bags were not labelled, no evidence of a cleaning regime for ear irrigation equipment, practice cleaning records did not evidence which task had been completed and by who and a foot operated bin was not provided in the staff toilet.

  • There were no written procedures for monitoring and recording the temperature of vaccine fridges and records of temperature checks were not maintained in sufficient detail.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice