During an assessment under our new approach
Date of Assessment: 11 November to 13 November 2025.
Millfield Surgery is a GP practice in the market town of Easingwold, approximately 15 miles north of York. It delivers service to around 8000 patients under a contract held with NHS England and provides a dispensary service to those patients who are eligible.
The surgery operates from a purpose-built, two-storey building which underwent significant refurbishment and redevelopment in 2021 to accommodate growing patient demand and improve service delivery. The building includes multiple clinical consultation rooms, treatment rooms, administrative offices, and a patient waiting area. It is fully accessible, with step-free access, automatic door, disabled parking bays, and accessible toilet facilities. All clinical services are provided on the ground floor. On-site parking is available for both staff and patients.
At the time of assessment, the clinical team consisted of 6 GP Partners and 1 salaried GP; 2 Advanced Nurse Practitioners; 4 Practice Nurses and 3 Health Care Assistants plus a range of allied health professionals. In addition, there are a range of administrative personnel to support everyday activities including a Practice Manager and an Operations Manager. The surgery is also a training site for GP registrars and medical students from Hull York Medical School.
The surgery is registered with CQC to provide diagnostic and screening procedures, family planning, maternity and midwifery services, surgical procedures and treatment of disease, disorder, or injury. It was previously assessed in September 2015 and rated ‘Good’ overall.
The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnic make-up of the surgery’s patient population is 98% White and 2% Asian, Black, Mixed Race or Other. The patient demographic differs from the national average, with a higher proportion (approaching 30%) of patients in the over 65 age band.
Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the ninth decile (9 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others.
This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the surgery, the context the surgery was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.
The surgery had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care.
The surgery did not consistently ensure that medicines and treatments were safe however or that they were tailored to individuals’ needs, capacities, and preferences. Although there were some good systems and processes in place, there were areas identified that required review.
People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.
While the service had systems in place to monitor patient outcomes however, these were not applied consistently to drive continuous improvement.
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.
People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.
Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.
While manygovernance processes were well-established, certain areas were identified which required review in order to strengthen oversight and monitoring.