The Miller Practice

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence the practice involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good.

At this assessment, we focused on 1 quality statement relating to the key question Caring: Kindness, compassion and dignity.

At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

The practice generally performed better than national averages in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey (GPPS) in relation to caring aspects of the service. This showed people felt listened to and felt they were treated with kindness. For example, 89% of respondents to the survey felt the healthcare professional at their last appointment was good at listening to them and treating them with care and concern, compared to the local averages of 84% and 85%, respectively. We also noted that 94% of the patients responding to the survey found the reception and administrative team at the practice helpful, compared with the local average of 80%.

We saw that 94% of the patients who responded to the GPPS thought they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. This compared with the local average of 90%. Overall, 82% of the patients responding described their overall experience of the practice as good, compared to the local average of 73%.

The GPPS data was supported by results of the Friends and Family Test (FFT) and direct feedback we received from patients. There had been 101 responses to the FFT in the year preceding our assessment, of which 66 patients rated the practice as very good with 33 rating it as good.

Staff had received training in Consent, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and relating to people with learning disabilities and autism. Staff understood Gillick competency and there was a process to ensure young adults had control over their own privacy and the amount of parental involvement in managing their care and support. Staff had undertaken chaperone training and notices informing patients that chaperones were available were posted in the consultation rooms. A private room was available for patients to discuss sensitive or confidential issues with reception staff away from the waiting area.

We spoke with 9 patients during the assessment. Their feedback was consistently positive regarding caring aspects of the service. Patients’ comments included:

• A helpful, informative and friendly consultation. I felt listened to.
• Everyone from reception, pharmacy and doctors [are] all so friendly and polite.
• The receptionist is always exceptional.

We received anonymous feedback from 13 staff members. They were very positive regarding the culture of the practice. It was apparent that they worked together to provide a patient-centred and caring service. Patient feedback was positive regarding the continuity of care the practice offered.

The opportunity for patients to leave reviews of GP services on the NHS website was discontinued in 2025. We saw that since then the practice had arranged for one of the partners to monitor and respond to Google reviews of the service. Although the reviews cannot be verified, we noted most were very positive. We also saw that when any concerns had been mentioned the reviewer was asked to contact the practice to discuss and resolve them.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.