- GP practice
Dunsville Medical Centre
Assessment report published 14 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 20 August 2026
Dunsville Medical Centre is a GP practice in Dunsville, on the outskirts of Doncaster. It delivers services to approximately 6984 people under a contract held with NHS England and is registered with the CQC to provide treatment of disease, disorder, and injury; family planning; surgical procedures; diagnostic and screening procedures; and maternity and midwifery services.
According to the latest available data, the ethnic make-up of the service area is approximately 95.5% White, 2.1% Asian, 1.2% Mixed, 0.7% Black and 0.5% Other.
Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows deprivation within the service population group is in the 4th decile (4 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.
SAFE
Staff kept facilities clean and maintained equipment appropriately to ensure people were kept safe. They generally assessed and managed the risk of infection well and took steps to control the risk of it spreading. Training which the service deemed mandatory was not up to date however and, while a review of recent recruitment showed that the service was currently following safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, some issues were identified with previous recruitment.
EFFECTIVE
Staff supported people to live healthier lives, monitoring their care and treatment to ensure they received positive and consistent outcomes.
CARING
Staff treated people with kindness, empathy, and compassion, and respected their privacy and dignity.
RESPONSIVE
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.
WELL-LED
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. The service did not always have well-established, good governance processes in place however for some quality statements that we reviewed during this assessment and, while improvements had been made by a new practice manager, oversight required strengthening in some areas.
People's experience of this service
As part of our assessment, we reviewed feedback from people who used the service to understand their views and experience of the service. This included feedback received by CQC, data from the latest National GP Patient Survey and the practice’s NHS Friends and Family test results.
In feedback to CQC, although some concerns were raised regarding appointment access and booking systems, people were predominantly positive about the quality of their care and treatment and described high-quality clinical care, excellent patient outcomes, strong relationships with trusted clinicians and caring and knowledgeable staff.
This positivity was mirrored in the results of recent surveys, including the 2026 National GP Patient Survey, and the NHS Friends and Family test which showed most people were satisfied with the provider.
There was an active patient participation group (PPG) who represented the views of people using the service. Representatives from the PPG told us that leaders engaged openly with the group, kept members informed about developments within the practice, and sought their views on proposed changes. Members said they received agendas and minutes for meetings, were encouraged to raise suggestions for improving services and patient engagement, and felt their views were listened to and considered when discussing service improvements. They also described receiving clear explanations about decisions, service constraints and national policies affecting the practice.