• Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Baxter and Partners

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Robert Lucas Drive, Hitchin Road, Shefford, Bedfordshire, SG17 5FS (01462) 818620

Provided and run by:
Dr Baxter and Partners

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr Baxter and Partners 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 Dr Baxter and Partners, you can give feedback on this service.

During an assessment under our new approach

The Dr Baxter and Partners is a NHS GP practice which provides primary care services to patients in Shefford, Bedfordshire. The practice is rated as good overall, with all key questions rated as good, apart from the responsive key question, which is rated as requires improvement. We carried out an announced assessment of equity of access on 10 January 2024. We found that the practice had organised services to meet patients’ needs, particularly those who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The practice used feedback and other information to monitor and improve access. The practice had taken action to improve access, particularly to how easy it was for patients to contact the practice, but this was not yet reflected consistently in the GP patient survey data or in other sources of patient feedback.

14 Aug 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Cakebread and partners on 14 August 2019 to confirm that the practice had carried out the necessary improvements in relation to their breaches of regulation.

The practice received an overall rating of requires improvement at our inspection on 23 January 2019 when warning notices were issued. A focused inspection was carried out on 17 April 2019 and the practice was found to be compliant with the warning notices.

The full comprehensive report from the January 2019 and April 2019 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Cakebread and partners on our website at .

Our judgement of the quality of care at this service is based 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.

The practice is rated as good overall.

(previously rated as requires improvement in January 2019)

This means that:

  • People who used the service were protected from avoidable harm and abuse, and legal requirements were met.
  • There was effective management of medicines and prescribing.
  • There was good oversight of pathology results and clinial practice. The practice had conducted clinical competency assessments that fed into individual appraisals.
  • The nursing team had developed a training programme for GP registrars and student nurses who were completing placements at the practice.
  • Patients had good outcomes because they received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • We saw examples of the practice providing bespoke care to vulnerable patients. This included well-being telephone calls, family meetings and open appointments. We saw that this had positively impacted on the care and treatment of these patients.
  • A nurse had been awarded the Queens Nurse title for consistent commitment to patient care.
  • Patients were supported, treated with dignity and respect and were involved as partners in their care.
  • Patients’ needs were met by the way in which services were organised and delivered.
  • The practice delivered person-centred care and communicated effectively with community teams. They were flexible to the needs of the most vulnerable and complex patients.
  • The leadership, governance and culture of the practice promoted the delivery of high quality person-centred care.
  • Staff were proud to work at the practice and were supported with their personal and professional development.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Embed systems to improve patient access.
  • Continue to monitor clinical indicators to improve patient outcomes.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BS BM BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

17 Apr 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection of Dr Cakebread and Partners on 17 April 2019. This inspection was undertaken to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulation set out in warning notices we issued to the provider for Regulation 12 Safe care and treatment.

The practice received an overall rating of requires improvement at our inspection on 23 January 2019 and this will remain unchanged until we undertake a further full comprehensive inspection within six months of the publication date of the initial report.

The full comprehensive report from the January 2019 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Cakebread and Partners on our website at .

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice had complied with the warning notices we issued and had taken the action needed to comply with the legal requirements.
  • The practice had reviewed the system to manage pathology results and this was safe and effective.
  • The practice had an effective process to disseminate safety alerts and recent guidelines and ensured appropriate actions were taken.
  • The practice had effective and thorough clinical policies.
  • The cold-chain was appropriately monitored and vaccination fridge temperatures were monitored daily.
  • Patient Specific Directions to enable healthcare assistants to give vaccinations were appropriately signed and stored.
  • A complete record of staff immunisations was held.
  • Competence of non-medical prescribers was assessed and practice was monitored and audited.
  • Patients who were vulnerable were followed up if they did not collect their prescriptions.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BS BM BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

23 Jan 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Cakebread and Partners on 23 January 2019 in response to concerns regarding poor care. These concerns were raised to the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsmen and not upheld. The practice were aware of the reason for our inspection. Our inspection team was led by a CQC inspector and included a GP specialist advisor and a practice nurse specialist advisor.

At the last inspection in June 2016 we rated the practice as good overall.

Our judgement of the quality of care at this service is based 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.

The practice is rated as requires improvement overall.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing safe services because:

  • The system to manage pathology results was ineffective. Shortly following the inspection, we received a policy which detailed how to manage these more safely.
  • A complete record of staff immunisations was not held.
  • Patient specific directions to allow vaccinations to be given by health care assistants were not always signed by a prescriber.
  • There was no audit or competency assessments for non-medical prescribers however, appraisals were completed for these staff.
  • We found breaks in the cold chain to safely store vaccinations that had not been appropriately escalated. Shortly after the inspection, we were provided evidence that this had been managed.
  • There were adequate safeguarding systems in place.
  • There were adequate recruitment systems in place.

We rated the practice as inadequate for providing effective services because:

  • There were no systems in place to ensure action had been taken in regard to the most recent guidance or safety alerts. We found that not all patients were receiving the correct treatment for example patients suffering from asthma or respiratory diseases.
  • There was not an effective system in place to follow up patients with mental health conditions who did not attend for repeat medicines.

We rated the practice as good for providing caring services because:

  • Patients were supported, treated with dignity and respect and were involved as partners in their care.

We rated the practice as good for providing responsive services because:

  • The practice offered flexible appointments that could be booked online.
  • Patients told us that they could make an appointment when they needed however, it was sometimes difficult to contact the surgery by telephone.
  • The practice listened to patient feedback and complaints and acted on it appropriately.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing well-led services because:

  • There was a lack of clinical oversight and systems were not always effective. However, the leadership, governance and culture of the practice aimed for delivery of high quality person-centred care.
  • Clinical policies were not always followed by all staff.
  • Staff felt proud to work at the service and felt comfortable to raise concerns to the management team.

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulation are:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.

There were areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to monitor patient satisfaction scores and improve telephone access to the practice.
  • Continue to identify and support carers.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BS BM BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

16 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Cakebread and Partners on 16 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care. Urgent appointments were available the same day and there was an extended hours service. Appointments could be booked over the telephone or online.
  • Patients were also offered telephone consultation appointments.
  • 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 treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • 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 provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

The areas that the provider should make improvement are:

  • Ensure that a robust and continuous process of appraisals is in place and that appraisals for all staff are carried out annually.
  • Ensure process is implemented to identify and support carers

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice