Norton Canes Health Centre Also known as Dr W Nilar and Partner

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 had performed better than the national average in the results of the National GP Patient 2025 Survey. This showed 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, 83% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 70%. In addition, 78% of respondents were positive about how easy it was to contact this GP practice on the phone, above the national average of 53%. The practice was located on the ground floor of the health centre and automatic doors had been fitted to the main entrance of the health centre. However, no automatic doors or call system had been fitted to the entrance to the GP practices to ensure ease of access to the service. Leaders told us they would escalate this to the landlord. During our site visit we observed a member of staff help a patient. There were 2 designated car parking spaces provided for people with a disability.

Feedback we received from patients during our assessment in relation to access was positive. Patients told us they were able to obtain same day appointments if they needed to be seen promptly. Appointments were released at 8.30am and 2pm daily and could be made in person, by phone or online via e-Consult, a secure, form-based online platform that allowed people to contact their GP practice remotely. Home visits were available for housebound patients.

During our site visit, we found that on the day appointments were readily available and that pre-bookable appointments with a GP were available within 3 days and within 1 day with the practice nurse. When people could not attend appointments within normal working hours, extended hours appointments were available on a Tuesday evening between 6.30pm to 8pm.Appointments were also available through the Cannock Villages Primary Care Network (PCN) weekday evenings from 6.30pm to 8pm and between 9am to 11.30am during weekends.

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.

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. For example, staff had established a dedicated support clinic to support people who were waiting to access specialist mental health support. This was run as a collaborative between local specialist services, charities and other health and care teams. Feedback from people who had attended this clinic was overwhelmingly positive, with people describing it as a “lifeline” and an “invaluable service”. 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 could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances.

Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, such as the Friends and Family Test (FFT). A FFT audit had been carried out on responses received from December 2025 to May 2026. The audit found that people were extremely satisfied with the care and support provided. Key themes found January 2026 included a significant number of comments praising the professionalism of both staff and clinicians. This indicated that the practice managed the higher workload effectively and maintained a high standard of service during a typically pressured period. Respondents repeatedly highlighted the good doctor, nurse, and receptionist interactions, reflecting a strong and reliable standard of care across all staff groups. Overall, the feedback demonstrated a consistently positive patient experience, with many respondents emphasising the supportive, efficient, and professional nature of the service. Several respondents expressed a desire for improved access to online appointment booking, indicating that greater digital flexibility would enhance convenience. However, the practice advised they were limited in the number and type of appointments that could be made available online, as certain clinical needs require reception triage to ensure patients were booked into the most appropriate 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.