The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Baker & Partners Practice Also known as St Georges Medical Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

91 Rushbottom Lane, Benfleet, Essex, SS7 4EA 0844 477 8732

Provided and run by:
St Georges Medical Practice

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 Baker & Partners Practice 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 Baker & Partners Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

29 January 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr Baker & Partners Practice on 29 January 2020. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

9 June 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Baker & Partners Practice on 18 May 2016 where the practice was rated as good overall. However the practice was found to be requires improvement for providing effective services. The full comprehensive report on the May 2016 inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Baker & Partners Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was a desk-based review carried out on 9 June 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to make the improvements required identified in our previous inspection on 18 May 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

The practice is rated as good for providing effective services.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice had completed audits and had planned to conduct one audit per year to drive improvement in patient outcomes.
  • The practice had implemented searches to assist in proactively identify patients in need of palliative care and provide them with appropriate care and treatment.
  • The practice had a matrix for training in place and was looking at different ways to identify training needs.
  • At the previous inspection the practice had identified 0.5% of their patients as carers; this had not increased at this review. The practice had ways to support carers in place.

Actions the practice SHOULD take to improve:

  • Review process and methods for identification of carers and the system for recording this to enable support and advice to be offered to those that require it.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

18 May 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Baker and Partners on 18 May 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. Lessons learned were regularly shared with all staff.
  • Risks to patients, including infection control, fire and legionella were assessed and well managed.
  • Adequate arrangements were in place to deal with medical emergencies.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • The practice did not have a proactive identification system for identifying patients requiring palliative care.
  • Most data showed patient outcomes were comparable to local and national averages; however, we saw no evidence that audits were driving improvements to patient outcomes.
  • The practice had only identified 0.5% of their patients as carers, these patients were offered additional support and access to services.
  • 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 in various formats and was easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns and learning outcomes were regularly shared with staff.
  • Patients told us they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and 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.
  • Staff received training, both internally and externally, however the monitoring of individual training records needed to be improved to prevent training needs being missed.
  • 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.
  • There was a business plan in place to drive improvements in the facilities and services offered by the practice over the next three years, this included the recent approval to become a training practice for GPs.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Continue to implement a programme of clinical audits to drive improvement in patient outcomes.

  • Proactively identify patients in need of palliative care and provide them with appropriate care and treatment.

  • Continue to identify carers and provide them with appropriate support.

  • Implement a system to improve the identification of staff training needs.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice