- GP practice
Kiveton Park Medical Practice
Assessment report published 27 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
People who used Kiveton Park Medical Practicewere given the opportunity to provide feedback to CQC as part of this assessment.
In total we received feedback from 53 patients. Although a small minority raised concerns around staff interactions and access to appointments, the majority of feedback was positive. The main themes identified were caring and compassionate staff, positive experiences with reception and administrative teams, good access to appointments, confidence in the clinical care provided, and recognition of the pressures facing general practice services.
The positivity in feedback was reflected in the results of recent surveys, including the 2026 National GP Patient Survey and NHS Friends and Family feedback, which showed that most people were satisfied with the service.
There was an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) that represented the views of people using the service. Representatives told us they met regularly with practice leaders and staff, felt comfortable raising issues and suggestions, and described meetings as open, welcoming, and informative. Members felt their views were generally listened to and valued the information shared about practice developments, local services, and community support.
Positive feedback was also provided by a local care home, who described a well-established relationship with the practice, responsive communication, regular ward rounds, and effective multidisciplinary working.