• Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Barber and Partners

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Parklands Surgery, Wymington Road, Rushden, Northamptonshire, NN10 9EB (01933) 396000

Provided and run by:
Dr Barber and Partners

All Inspections

26 September 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Dr Barber and Partners on 26 September 2023. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe –Good.

Effective – Good.

Caring – Good.

Responsive – Good.

Well-led – Good.

Following our previous inspection on 6 December 2022, the practice was rated Good overall and Good for providing Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive services. The practice was rates as Requires Improvement for providing Well-Led services.

From the inspection on 6 December 2022, the practice was told they must:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

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

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a focused follow-up inspection to follow up on the Requires Improvement rating for Well-Led at the last inspection in December 2022. The practice was found to be in breach of Regulation 17 of the Health & Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. A requirement notice was issued.

In December 2022, we rated the practice as Requires Improvement for providing Well-Led services because:

  • We found governance systems relating to oversight of staff training needed strengthening.

In addition, we told the provider they should:

  • Continue to review staff recruitment systems, particularly those relating to disclosure and Barring Checks (DBS) for non-clinical staff to ensure risks remain minimised.
  • Continue to encourage and engage patients to attend for cervical screening.
  • Undertake repeat cycle clinical audits to monitor improvements made.

How we carried out the inspection

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to avoid an on-site visit.

This included:

  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • Reviewing evidence sent in advance of the inspection to demonstrate action taken and improvements made.

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:

  • Improvements had been made to management systems to support staff training, reducing risks to patients and staff. Evidence provided demonstrated records of training were well maintained.
  • The practice evidenced that DBS checks were undertaken for all staff.
  • The practice provided assurance that efforts were being made to improve patient uptake of cervical cancer screening services. For example, patient feedback highlighted that the majority of eligible patients preferred to attend at weekends or outside of normal working hours. In response, the practice was working with the local extended access hub and nurses were providing a Saturday cervical smear clinic. The practice advised this, amongst other initiatives, such as increased advertising on social media and improved information for patients, had resulted in improved uptake. The practice advised an audit of uptake for this service was scheduled for December 2023.
  • Evidence provided demonstrated improvements in the use of regular audits to monitor patient safety, quality improvement work and practice systems. For example, we saw there was a schedule for regular medicines safety audits. An audit of patients with Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) had been undertaken to ensure records for patients had been reviewed in the preceding 12 months.

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

6 December 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Barber and Partners on 6 December 2022, this included remote interviews on the 5 December, and a site visit on 7 December 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe –Good.

Effective – Good.

Caring – Good.

Responsive – Good.

Well-led – Requires Improvement.

Why we carried out this inspection

Following our previous inspection on 5 February 2015, 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 Dr Barber and Partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding to test the reliability of our new monitoring approach.

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 included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A short site visit of the practice.

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 provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Where we identified gaps in staff training the practice responded in a timely manner to reduce risks to patients and staff.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way. Patient satisfaction with the service was good.
  • The practice employed a community advanced nurse practitioner who supported patients at home and in local care homes.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
  • We found governance systems relating to oversight of staff training needed strengthening.

We found one breach of regulations. The provider must:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

In addition, the provider should:

  • Continue to review staff recruitment systems, particularly those relating to disclosure and Barring Checks (DBS) for non-clinical staff to ensure risks remain minimised.
  • Continue to encourage and engage patients to attend for cervical screening.
  • Consider undertaking repeat cycle clinical audits to monitor improvements made.

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

10 October 2014

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We inspected Dr Hogg and Partners on 10 October 2014, as part of our new, comprehensive inspection programme.

The overall rating for this practice is good. We found the practice to be safe, effective, caring, responsive to people’s needs and well-led. The quality of care experienced by older people, by people with long term conditions and by families, children and young people is good. Working age people, those in vulnerable circumstances and people experiencing poor mental health also receive good quality care.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice was a, friendly, caring and responsive practice that addressed patients’ needs and that worked in partnership with other health and social care services to deliver individualised care.
  • The practice received high satisfaction rates for appointment availability.
  • The clinical and administrative team had a good understanding of the needs of their patient population. This was particularly the case in relation to those patients who were at most risk of poor health whose care was proactively managed through personalised care plans.
  • Staff were multi-skilled and could carry out a variety of roles.
  • People who cared for others were identified and their needs were also proactively managed by a carer’s champion.

We saw one area of outstanding practice.

  • The practice had taken steps to meet the need of patients with poor mental health by introducing phlebotomy services where travel to the local phlebotomy service might be stressful and anxiety provoking.

There was one area of practice where the provider needed to make improvements.

  • The practice should take steps to ensure every staff member who might perform the role of chaperone has appropriate training.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice