The Miller Practice

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them with advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good.

At this assessment, we focused on 2 quality statements relating to the key question Effective: Supporting people to live healthier lives and Monitoring and improving outcomes.

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.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The practice supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The practice supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives and those with caring responsibilities.

The practice had identified 129 people with caring responsibilities (1.4% of the patient list) and provided them with appropriate support. The practice had a named carers’ champion and support information was available for staff to pass on to carers. There was a dedicated notice board in the waiting area. We saw evidence of events arranged by the practice specifically for carers, including a flu clinic in October 2025, with a social prescriber attending, and a support event in November 2025. We noted another was scheduled to take place in June 2026. There was information for carers accessible on the practice website, with links to local and national support agencies.

The practice participated in national initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity; its website included guidance and support links on matters such as drug and alcohol addiction, diabetes and mental and sexual health. There was a blood pressure monitor in the reception area for patients’ use.

We saw the practice had hosted an engagement event with the local council’s housing department to provide support and advice to patients and local residents on welfare, social and housing issues. The feedback for which was very positive.

The practice routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive, consistent and met the expectations of people themselves.

The practice performed better than average in relation to the uptake of childhood immunisations and bowel cancer screening of people aged between 60 and 74 years.

We reviewed the most recent data for childhood immunisations published by the UK Health Security Agency (1/4/2024 to 31/3/2025). The practice had met the World Health Organisation’s 95% target for 3 of the 5 indicators and met the 90% target minimum for another of the 5. For the fifth indicator, children aged 5 who have received immunisation for measles, mumps and rubella (2 doses of MMR), the practice had achieved 82%. We noted that this cohort was smaller than the others and the results were adversely impacted by a few families not engaging with the immunisation programme. The practice was aware of the issue and was working to engage with the families, opportunistically and by repeat invites to increase uptake.

Published data relating to bowel cancer screening for people aged 60 to 74 years showed the practice performed above average with 74.7% of patients being screened in 2024-25, compared to the national average of 71.8%.

The latest available published data for cervical screening uptake (at June 2024) was below the Programme Standard - 80% of eligible women to have adequate screening test within previous three and a half years. This is a known trend, particularly in London. The data showed the practice’s uptake rate for 25 to 49-year-olds was 62%, while for 50 to 64-year-olds it was 73%. The latest published comparison data (up to March 2024) when the practice attained similar figures, showed it was ranked 71st of the 175 GPs in North Central London for uptake in the lower age group; and 75th in relation to the older group. The practice showed us some current, but unverified, data which indicated an improvement in uptake since 2024.

The practice had participated in 2 clinical audits conducted within the Primary Care Network (PCN), relating to (1) pancreatic cancer detection in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes and (2) bowel cancer screening of patients with severe mental illness. Both had provided learning points which would lead to improved monitoring and earlier detection.

Working with others within the PCN, the practice was involved in a programme to improve and speed access to diagnostics in relation to respiratory conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

The practice had adopted a new care model for managing a wider range of long-term conditions within the North Central London Integrated Care System. This provided patients with a check and test appointment, a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) review, test results and care plan, discussion appointment and a follow up.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.