Kiveton Park Medical Practice

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 outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed from outstanding to good. We found that some of those elements previously regarded as outstanding practice were now embedded throughout the majority of GP practices. Whilst the provider had maintained this good practice, the threshold to achieve an outstanding rating overall had not been reached.

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.

Kiveton Park Medical Practice ensured that people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

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

Our review of clinical records showed that patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning their care.

Patient feedback to the CQC also provided evidence of person-centred care. Patients reported that clinicians took time to listen to their concerns, understand their individual circumstances and tailor care and support to meet their needs. Feedback indicated that people felt supported, respected and treated as individuals, with several patients expressing appreciation for the personalised approach taken by staff.

Kiveton Park Medical Centre understood the diverse health and care needs of people and the local community, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, the practice worked closely with Hospital at Home and Virtual Ward services to improve communication and transfer-of-care arrangements, resulting in more effective sharing of patient information between organisations. The practice also collaborated with secondary care providers, social prescribing services, social care, and safeguarding agencies to coordinate care for people with complex needs and circumstances.

Learning from significant events and mortality reviews were used to strengthen referral pathways, discharge processes, and patient follow-up arrangements, supporting continuity of care and positive outcomes for patients.

Kiveton Park Medical Practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual patient needs.

The practice website was not available in multiple languages; however, it was compatible with screen readers and allowed users to adjust text size to support accessibility.

Staff had access to interpreter services, and arrangements were in place to ensure compliance with NHS England's Accessible Information Standard. This standard sets out how NHS and adult social care services should identify, record, flag, share, meet and review people’s information and communication needs.

Patients were informed through the practice website about how to access their medical records and results from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 85% of patients knew what the next step would be after contacting the practice, as compared with the national average of 84%.

The practice maintained an active Patient Participation Group (PPG), which met regularly and provided a forum for patients and practice staff to share information, discuss developments, and contribute feedback on services. PPG members told us they felt listened to and described meetings as open and welcoming, with practice representatives providing updates on operational changes and presentations on relevant health topics. Minutes from PPG meetings were published on the practice website, helping to ensure information was accessible to the wider patient population.

Kiveton Park Medical Centre made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and sought feedback to help improve services.

For example, people could provide feedback or complain online via their website, by email, letter or verbally. People were also encouraged to give feedback online, through the NHS Friends and Family Test and there was a suggestions and feedback form available on the practice website.

Complaints were managed in line with the practice’s complaints policy and compliments were logged and shared with staff. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made because of patient feedback, including complaints. Staff described several examples where feedback had led to improvements, including changes to the process for managing two-week wait referral enquiries to ensure patients received accurate information, improvements to car park lighting following concerns about visibility and safety, and measures to keep patients informed when clinics were running late. Staff also described changes made to improve privacy and accessibility, including replacing damaged consultation room blinds and providing seating better suited to people with mobility needs.

The practice also worked with their PPG providing updates on developments within the service and seeking patient views on proposed improvements. Feedback from PPG members indicated they generally felt their views were listened to, and issues raised through the group had informed discussions and actions relating to areas such as accessibility, the practice website and patient access to services. The practice had also developed action plans with the PPG to support future improvements.

Kiveton Park Medical Practice ensured that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed, when they needed it.

The main surgery was open Monday to Friday from 8:00am to 6:30pm. The Harthill branch surgery operated Monday 8:30am to 12:30pm and 4:00pm to 6:00pm; Tuesday 8:30am to 12:30pm; Wednesday 8:30am to 3:00pm; Thursday 8:30am to 12:30pm and 4:00pm to 6:00pm; and Friday 8:30am to 12:30pm.

The provider offered a range of appointments to support access for different patient groups. Cervical screening appointments were available on Tuesday evenings at the Kiveton site between 6:30pm and 8:30pm. In addition, as part of local extended access arrangements, evening and Saturday morning appointments were available at Kiveton and 2 other sites within their primary care network.

Patients were advised to contact NHS 111 when the practice was closed and to call 999 in the event of a medical or mental health emergency. The practice operated a combination of urgent and pre-bookable appointments. Home visits were available, at the discretion of a GP, for patients who were unable to attend the surgery, helping to maintain continuity of care and ensure equitable access to services.

Feedback received directly by the CQC indicated that patients generally experienced good access to the practice. Most patients reported that they were able to obtain appointments in a timely manner, including same-day and urgent appointments when required. Patients told us they found it easy to book appointments, access the most appropriate healthcare professional and receive prompt responses to concerns. However, a small number of patients reported difficulties obtaining appointments at times and raised concerns regarding some reception and administrative processes.

This feedback was broadly reflected in the results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey, which showed the practice performed above the national average in some areas and below it in others. For example:

• 71 % of respondents described their overall experience of contacting the practice as good, compared with the national average of 73%.
• 60% of respondents stated that they found it easy to get through to the practice by telephone, compared with the national average of 57%.
• 60% of respondents were offered a choice of time or day when making their last appointment, compared with the national average of 57%: and
• 59% of respondents felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last GP appointment, compared with the national average of 69%.

During our site visit, we observed that both practice locations were accessible to patients with a range of needs. Consulting and treatment rooms were located on the ground floor, accessible parking was available at both sites, and hearing loops were provided at reception desks. The practice also offered baby changing facilities and accessible toilets. Electronic self-check-in screens were available at both locations and provided language options to support patients whose first language was not English.

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.

The majority of feedback provided by people using the service, both to the surgery as well as to CQC, was 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, including within the voluntary sector, 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 practice had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers.

The practice has demonstrated a proactive approach to identifying and addressing health inequalities by implementing targeted call and recall systems that extend beyond national QOF (Quality and Outcomes Framework) requirements. This included maintaining condition-specific registers for patients at risk of being lost between services, such as those requiring PSA monitoring, patients with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia, and women with a history of gestational diabetes. The practice had also strengthened monitoring for patients with severe mental illness by enhancing recall systems for those prescribed atypical antipsychotics, resulting in high levels of completion for physical health monitoring. In addition, the practice had improved the management of incidental findings from lung health checks by proactively contacting patients with emphysema and directing them towards smoking cessation support or further respiratory assessment where appropriate.

The practice recognised the impact of wider determinants of health and used social prescribing to support patients with issues such as housing, financial difficulties, mental health concerns, and weight management. This included partnership working to provide cancer support services and the development of bereavement support.

For vulnerable groups, including care home residents and housebound patients, the practice undertook proactive reviews and had developed processes with Hospital at Home services to improve continuity of care and reduce barriers to access.

The practice had also sought to make routine healthcare more accessible by utilising community pharmacy services for blood pressure monitoring, reducing the need for patients to attend the surgery and helping to remove practical barriers to ongoing health management.

Kiveton Park Medical Practice supported people 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.

Patient records were reviewed where a ReSPECT (Recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment) form was in place, and where such forms had been completed by practice staff, a copy was held on the patient’s clinical record as per best practice.