Mile Oak Medical Centre

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

The service performed in line with the national average in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. The results showed most people could access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the service’s website. For example, 75% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 70%.

The service had recently introduced a ‘total triage’ appointment system which meant that people were now encouraged to submit an online form with their request and a description of any symptoms. The forms were reviewed by a clinician and people were contacted with the outcome, for example a face-to-face or telephone appointment. Staff were positive about the new system which they felt was more reliable in identifying people with urgent or serious needs. There were systems in place to support people who could not submit an online form themselves, for example, there was a mechanism for doing this over the telephone or in the waiting room with the support of the reception team. We received positive comments from people about the system, particularly about the quick response following submission of the form. However, a consistent theme in some comments we received was that people were concerned about this with some reporting difficulties. We received comments from some people saying they or a family member had not been able to obtain help from the reception team when they needed it to complete the form. Some people had not experienced problems themselves but were concerned that the system might not be suitable for everyone. The service told us they would review this aspect of the system.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and there was an automatic door to the entrance to ensure ease of access to the service.

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.

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. The service had relatively large premises and hosted a range of services to reduce the need for people to have to travel to health services. For example, at the time of this assessment, the service was renting a room to the local community NHS Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) service so that people could receive a diagnostic assessment for the condition closer to home.

The service had identified that its population included people living independently with frailty and people with complex or long-term conditions. The service prioritised continuity of GP for this group of people as part of the triage process if clinically appropriate. The GPs told us they considered continuity an important factor in improving people’s quality of care and outcomes in more complex cases. We received several comments from people about the positive impact of being able to see their ‘named GP’ regularly.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and adjusted their approach to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. We received comments from people regarding the adjustments the service made, for example to support a person with autism when attending the service at a preferred time of day and with continuity of staff. People with learning disabilities were triaged for appointments with direct reference to their recorded needs and preferences.

Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, which included those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. There was written information displayed in the waiting areas encouraging people with hearing difficulties to discuss any adjustments to support their access and care.

We also received several positive comments about the quality of mental health support available from the service and the availability of advice and care for the menopause.

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.