The Miller Practice

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked for evidence people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good.

At this assessment, we focused on 3 quality statements relating to the key question Safe: Safe environments, Safe and effective staffing and Infection prevention and control (IPC). We noted some issues in relation to the premises and IPC which warrant close monitoring.

At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 69 (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 Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Potential risks in the care environment were generally well-managed. The practice operates in a listed building, subject to protected status, which limits what works and alterations can be carried out. We noted some issues such as cracks in wall plaster, a cracked sink and old floor covering. Staff told us remedial work had been delayed while new premises were being identified. Plans for the premises move were now advancing, but dates have not yet been established.

There were a number of accessible consultation rooms on the ground floor, accommodating patients with mobility problems, with others on the first floor, reached by a flight of stairs.

Fire safety and premises risk assessments had been carried out and we were shown confirmation the 2026 inspections had been arranged. We saw evidence of weekly fire alarm testing. The annual check and certification of the fire alarm, emergency lighting and fire extinguishers was conducted in February 2026.

We saw evidence that a legionella risk assessment had been conducted and regular temperature testing and sample analysis was carried out. Records of annual Portable Appliance Testing and equipment calibration were in order. The 2025 annual gas safety check had been conducted, and we saw evidence that the 2026 was being arranged. The premises electrical inspection was booked for later in May 2026.

We saw evidence of staff completing training in Fire Safety, Health, Safety and Welfare and, where relevant, Legionnaires Disease.

The practice had a detailed business continuity plan which was regularly reviewed and outlined how the service should continue to operate in the event of a disruption.

The practice made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The practice employed a range of clinical staff, including GPs, a practice nurse, and healthcare assistants. Three pharmacists, employed by the primary care network, worked several weekly sessions at the practice. It is a teaching practice and at the time of our assessment 3 GP registrars were working there.

Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their training which the practice had deemed mandatory and operated within their agreed areas of competence. We reviewed 5 staff personnel files and saw the practice followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, which were in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, review of qualifications, obtaining of professional references and a criminal records check. We noted there was a very low turnover of staff. There had been some inconsistency and delays in conducting staff appraisals due to absence, but we saw evidence these had been programmed for the near future.

The practice had appropriate equipment and medicines for use in medical emergencies. These included an oxygen supply, with suitable fittings for children, and a portable defibrillator. The medicines and equipment were checked weekly and a record was maintained. We saw from the staff training report, produced by the online system the practice used, that most staff were up to date on relevant training such as anaphylaxis and sepsis awareness. We noted a few gaps in the training records but were shown these related to staff on long-term absence. A training session on Basic Life Support, Defibrillator use and Choking had been conducted for all staff in November 2025.

We identified some issues relating to infection prevention and control (IPC) measures which needed to be reviewed by the practice. We will ask the practice for an action plan after our assessment report is published.

We noted that clinical curtains, although looking clean upon inspection, had not been replaced since May 2025. We found dust up on top of cupboards in clinical rooms, and a chair in the waiting room had a torn covering, preventing thorough cleaning. The practice confirmed these matters would be addressed straight away with the premises cleaning contractor and that there would be closer monitoring of cleaning moving forward. The practice had a contract in place to a manage and remove clinical waste; we saw appropriate IPC guidance was posted in the clinical rooms and waste and sharps bins were in order.

NHS England had carried out an IPC audit in May 2025, with the practice achieving 96% compliance. Some issues relating to decoration, floorings and hand-washing facilities had been identified for action. The practice had followed up with its own IPC review in December 2025. We noted the same issues mentioned in the May 2025 audit during our site visit, which present a raised IPC risk. Staff told us remedial action had been deferred pending the practice moving to a new location. However, the timescale for the move was not yet clear and the practice confirmed the issues would be closely monitored.

We saw the practice maintained a record of staff members’ vaccinations and ensured they had mandatory IPC training appropriate to their roles. We inspected some clinical equipment samples which were visibly clean. There were appropriate procedures for specimen collection and handling.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.