The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The Baldock Surgery Also known as Dr MM Thomas and Partners

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Astonia House, High Street, Baldock, Hertfordshire, SG7 6BP (01462) 892458

Provided and run by:
The Baldock Surgery

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Baldock Surgery on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about The Baldock Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

12 December 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at The Baldock Surgery on 12 December 2023. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring – Good

Responsive – Requires Improvement

Well-led - Good

Following our previous comprehensive inspection on 27 February 2019 the practice was rated good overall and for all key questions.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The Baldock Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out this assessment as part of our work to understand how practices are working to try to meet peoples 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, high-quality care to the people they serve. We know staff are carrying this out whilst the demand for general practice remains exceptionally high, with more appointments being provided than ever. However, 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 inspection

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This assessment was carried out remotely. It did not include a site visit.

The process included:

  • Conducting an interview with the provider and members of staff using video conferencing.
  • Reviewing patient feedback from a range of sources
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • Reviewing data we hold about the provider.
  • Seeking information/feedback from relevant stakeholders

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:

  • During the assessment process, the provider highlighted the actions they have taken to make improvements to the responsiveness of the service for their patient population.
  • The GP survey patient over the last two years had mostly remained below the national average.
  • The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who responded positively to how easy it was to get through to someone at their GP practice on the phone had remained below the national average in the last 2 years.
  • The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who responded positively to the overall experience of making an appointment remained below the national average in the last 2 years.
  • The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who were very satisfied or fairly satisfied with their GP practice appointment times remained below the national average in the last 2 years.
  • On the other hand, we also found that the percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who were satisfied with the appointment (or appointments) they were offered was above the national average. The practice mostly attributed this to their triage system.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

• Continue to improve patient access.

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 Health Care

25 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Baldock Surgery on 25 February 2016. 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.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • 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 happy with the care they received and thought staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • The practice worked well with the patient participation group (PPG) and responded positively to concerns raised.
  • Links with the local community had been established this included the local secondary school. The practice nurses supported the school matron.
  • 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 practice had developed a teaching and training environment and supported learners of all levels from work experience students to GP trainees.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

The areas where the provider should improvements are:

  • Consider additional training for the infection control lead to complete their role.

  • Update the health and safety policy with the name of the current health and safety representative.

  • Continue to review the access to the practice via the telephone in response to the GP national patient survey results.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice