Archived: Dr Dawton and Partners

Updated 8 May 2015

The practice service is located in a residential area on the outskirts of Chelmsford town. It has a patient population of approximately 8,000. The practice consists of four partner GPs, one female Partner and three male GP partners, as well as a salaried female GP to take four clinical sessions a week. The practice has a practice nursing team including a healthcare assistant who conducts phlebotomy (the taking of blood). The practice is a teaching practice aligned to St Barts and The London Hospitals and also works with local schools providing shadowing experience and support for students considering a career in medicine.

The practice holds a General Medical Service contract. This is the type of contract the practice holds with NHS England to provide medical care to patients.

The practice has a comprehensive website providing a wealth of information for patients to understand and access services, including useful links to specialist support services.

The practice has opted out of providing out-of-hours services to their own patients. The services are provides by Essex Emergency Care Services. Although patient may also call NHS 111 service for advice and guidance. Information is provided to patients in their practice leaflet and patients are actively encouraged to call them prior to attending accident and emergency services.

Updated 8 May 2015

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Dawton and Partners on Wednesday 18 February 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, well-led, effective, caring and responsive services. It was also good for providing services for the older people, people with long-term conditions, families, children and young people, working age people (including those recently retired and students), people living in vulnerable circumstances, and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, with the exception of those relating to succession planning.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
• 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.
• 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.

However there were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements.

• Maintain records of meetings to reflect discussions, learning and information sharing.
• Conduct an environmental risk assessment to identify risks to patients, staff and visitors to the practice.
• Conduct Legionella assessment and testing, as appropriate

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Updated 8 May 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions. Nursing staff had lead roles in chronic disease management and patients at risk of hospital admission were identified as a priority. Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed. All these patients had a named GP and a structured annual review to check that their health and medication needs were being met. For those people with the most complex needs, the named GP worked with relevant health and care professionals to deliver a multidisciplinary package of care.

Updated 8 May 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people. There were systems in place to identify and follow up children living in disadvantaged circumstances and who were at risk. Immunisation rates were high for all standard childhood immunisations when compared to national averages. Patients told us that children and young people were treated in an age-appropriate way and were recognised as individuals, and we saw evidence to confirm this. Appointments were available outside of school hours and the premises were suitable for children and babies. We saw good examples of joint working with health visitors.

Updated 8 May 2015

This practice is rated as good for the care of older people. Patients over the age of 75 had a named GP. The GPs carried out visits to people’s homes if they were unable to travel to the practice for appointments. The practice worked with local care homes to provide a responsive service to the people who lived there. They maintained a frailty register, working with partner services to coordinate patient care. We saw good examples of joint working with the district nursing team.

The practice identified people with caring responsibilities and those who required additional support which was recorded on their patient record. Patients with caring responsibilities were invited to register as carers so that they could be offered support and advice about the range of agencies and benefits available to them. Patients also benefited from access to independent specialist advocacy services.

Updated 8 May 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students). The needs of the working age population, those recently retired and students 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 proactive in offering online services as well as a full range of health promotion and screening that reflects the needs for this age group.

Updated 8 May 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). The practice has a GP responsible for leading on mental health. The practice worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia. The practice had told patients experiencing poor mental health about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations.

Updated 8 May 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. The practice held a register of patients living in vulnerable circumstances including homeless people, traveller communities and those with a learning disability. It had carried out annual health checks for people with a learning disability and offered longer appointments for people with a learning disability.

The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the care of vulnerable people. It had told vulnerable patients about how to access various support groups and voluntary organisations. Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in vulnerable adults and children. Staff were aware of their responsibilities regarding information sharing, documentation of safeguarding concerns and how to contact relevant agencies in normal working hours and out of hours.