The Miller Practice

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that the practice met people’s needs, and staff treated people equally and without discrimination. 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 Responsive: Equity in access and Equity in experience and 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 Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The practice made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The practice opened from 8.00am to 6.30pm from Monday to Friday. It offered face to face and telephone appointments. Home visits were provided in appropriate circumstances, according to clinical need. Appointments outside the standard operating times and at weekends were available at a number of enhanced access service locations around the borough.

The practice performed generally better than national averages in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey in relation to being a responsive service. This showed people could access the practice when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the practice’s website. For example, 83% of respondents to the survey were positive regarding how easy it was to contact the practice on the phone, compared to a national average of 53%; in addition, 71% found it easy to contact the practice using its website, compared to the national average of 51%; and 72% found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS App, compared with the national average of 49%.

We saw patients could use facilities on the practice website to submit information regarding their health for review by practice clinicians. These included reviews in relation to asthma, blood pressure, epilepsy and smoking. Patients could carry out self-assessments using tools on the practice website regarding issues such as alcohol consumption, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hypothyroidism and other health issues.

We saw the practice offered a foreign language phone translation service and the practice website had a translation facility for patients for whom English is an additional language. A British Sign Language practitioner could be booked for patients with hearing impairment, and there was an induction loop available in reception.

The premises were generally accessible to, and had facilities for, people with mobility issues and wheelchair users. But building works limitation was one of the reasons why a new location for the practice was needed. Disabled and cycle parking was available.

The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard, having easy read material on a range of topics available for patients with learning disabilities.

The practice website had a facility whereby patients could undertake a foreign travel risk assessment and book any necessary vaccinations.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

We noted that 96% of the patients who responded to the 2025 National GP Patient Survey felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment. This compared to the local average of 91%.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local services, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. Staff had received Equality, Diversity, Inclusion, and Human Rights training.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff followed processes to ensure people, including those in vulnerable circumstances, could register at the practice. The practice registered homeless people and visitors could register as temporary patients to receive emergency care and treatment. Out of area patients could also register with the practice but could not be offered home visits.

Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, both online and using written forms with a suggestions box in the waiting area. This was reflected in the feedback shared from people who used the service, which was positive.

Patient feedback included:

• I’ve been at the practice for a long time and have always felt well looked after.
• [Named doctor and receptionist] deserve a medal.
• I have recently had a much better, empathetic and understanding response from a GP at this service.
• Excellent service.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.