The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Drs Coleman, Sellars, Sharpe, Tupper and Leighton Also known as The Kingthorne Group Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

83a Thorne Road, Doncaster, South Yorkshire, DN1 2EU (01302) 342832

Provided and run by:
Drs Coleman, Sellars, Sharpe, Tupper and Leighton

All Inspections

14 December 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out a targeted announced assessment of Drs Coleman, Sellars, Sharpe, Tupper and Leighton in relation to the responsive key question. This assessment was carried out on 14 December 2023 without a site visit. Overall, the practice is rated as Good. We rated the key question of responsive as Good.

Safe - Good

Effective – Good

Caring - Good

Responsive – Good

Well-led – Good

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Drs Coleman, Sellars, Sharpe, Tupper and Leighton on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this review

This was a targeted assessment of the key question of responsive to understand how practices are working to try and meet the demands for access and to better understand the experiences of people who use services and providers.

We recognise the work that GP practices have been engaged in to continue to provide safe, quality care to the people they serve. We know colleagues are doing this while demand for general practice remains exceptionally high, with more appointments being provided than ever. In this challenging context, access to general practice remains a concern for people. Our strategy makes a commitment to deliver regulation driven by people’s needs and experiences of care. These assessments of the responsive key question include looking at what practices are doing innovatively to improve patient access to primary care and sharing this information to drive improvement.

How we carried out the assessment

This inspection was carried remotely.

This included:

  • Conducting an interview with the provider and staff interviews using video conferencing.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.

Our findings

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

We found that:

  • The practice had a proactive approach to identifying the needs of patients and responding to them.
  • National GP Patient Survey data was consistently high over a number of years including during the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Data was consistently above local and national averages.
  • The practice implemented initiatives to improve telephone and appointment access and worked towards continuous improvement.
  • The practice worked with their partners, patents and Patient Participation Group (PPG) to identify where they might improve.
  • The practice dealt with complaints in a timely manner and learned from them.

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

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

15/01/2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Drs Coleman, Forbes, Sellars, Sharpe, Tupper and Leighton also known as Kingthorne Group Practice on 15 January 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

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

We have rated this practice as good overall.

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm .

  • There was a holistic approach to assessing, planning and delivering care and treatment to all people who use services.

  • There was a strong person-centred culture.

  • Services were tailored to meet the needs of individual patients. They were delivered in a flexible way that ensured choice and continuity of care, particularly for older people, people with long term conditions and working age people.

  • The culture of the practice and the way it was led and managed drove the delivery and improvement of high-quality, person-centred care.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

  • At appointments the practice gave young people a simple leaflet they had produced, identifying where they can go for help for mental and sexual health as well as advice around alcohol and smoking.

  • The needs of population groups had been identified and the practice had adjusted the services it offered to ensure these were accessible, flexible and offered continuity of care.

  • The practice was innovative and proactive in its approach to healthcare, recognising the importance of meeting a patient’s emotional needs as well as their physical needs, organising initiatives at the practice and signposting patients to activities and groups within the community. For example the practice is a ‘Park Run Practice’. This takes place every Saturday for all patient age groups and staff. All patients are invited to attend to either run, walk or watch. All participants are given a T-shirt to wear with a logo on ‘#Team KT’ so they felt part of the team. This activity is aimed at improving patient’s health, fitness and socialisation. Patient feedback confirmed this. Patients felt supported by the practice to attend, enjoyed it and would recommend the group to friends and family.

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

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

13 January 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced inspection visit on 13 January 2015. The overall rating for the practice is good. Specifically, we found the practice was good in providing: safe, responsive and effective care for all of the population groups it serves.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Where incidents had been identified relating to safety, staff had been made aware of the outcome and action was taken where appropriate, to keep people safe.
  • All areas of the practice were visibly clean and where issues had been identified relating to infection control, action had been taken.
  • Patients received care according to professional best practice clinical guidelines. The practice had regular information updates, which informed staff about new guidance to ensure they were up to date with best practice.
  • The service ensured patients received accessible, individual care, whilst respecting their needs and wishes.
  • We found there were positive working relationships between staff and other healthcare professionals involved in the delivery of service.
  • Evidence we reviewed demonstrated patients were satisfied with how they were treated and this was with compassion, dignity and respect. It also demonstrated the GPs were good at listening to patients and gave them enough time.
  • The practice had an open culture that was effective and encouraged staff to share their views through staff meetings and significant event meetings.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

  • All patients, but particularly those who work, could access appointments during the week and Saturday morning openings throughout the year. Patients could also access the GP for telephone advice if attending the practice was difficult. The practice was also developing SKYPE technology to further enable consultations.
  • The appointment system was effective and routine appointment waiting times were no longer than one to two days on average.
  • The practice used the ‘choose and book’ system effectively by ensuring all patients had a referral made before they left the surgery on the day of their appointment.
  • We saw that the practice recalled any patients who had not attended the practice for five years to review their health needs.

However, there were also areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

  • Events and Incidents were reviewed by the GPs and discussed at their meetings. However, the systems in place did not always provide a detailed analysis and information was at times limited.
  • A wide range of information about the practice and services was provided. However, key documents, such as the practice booklet and complaints procedure, were only available in English, which did not meet the language needs of some of the patient population.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice