The Wall House Surgery

Updated 11 June 2026

Date of Assessment: 23 June 2026. The Wall House Surgery is a GP practice and delivers services to approximately 22,400 people under a contract held with NHS England. According to the latest available data, the ethnic make-up of the service area is approximately 87.8% White, 5% Asian, 3.5% Mixed, 2.3% Black and 1.3% Other. Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows deprivation within the service population group is in the 10th decile (10 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the service population is relative to others.

This was a focused assessment. We undertook this assessment due to the length of time since our last assessment. We assessed 10 quality statements from across all 5 key questions. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

Staff kept facilities clean and maintained equipment appropriately to ensure people were kept safe. They assessed and managed the risk of infection well and took steps to control the risk of it spreading. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience.

Staff supported people to live healthier lives, monitoring their care and treatment to ensure they received positive and consistent outcomes. They also used opportunistic screening to identify people with undiagnosed conditions or health risks. This supported earlier diagnosis, timely intervention, reduced health inequalities and improved management of long-term conditions.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, and respected their privacy and dignity.

People could access care, treatment and support when they needed it. Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage groups of people who used the service and sought ways to address any barriers. This included using reasonable adjustments, carrying out proactive interventions and reviews for complex patients, and adapting services in response to identified needs that could contribute to health inequalities.

The service had a clear vision and strategy, which considered the needs of the people who used their service and the wider community. Staff understood their individual roles and responsibilities. Leaders accounted for the actions, behaviours and performance of staff through clear and effective governance processes.

Updated 11 June 2026

As part of our assessment, we reviewed feedback from people who used the service to understand their views and experience of the service. This included speaking with people using the service at the time of our assessment and reviewing other feedback available to us. People were positive about the quality of their care and treatment. They described how staff treated them with kindness and compassion and respected their privacy. This was mirrored in the results of recent surveys, including the 2025 National GP Patient Survey (GPPS), which showed most people were satisfied with their overall experience of the service. There was an active patient participation group (PPG) who represented the views of people using the service. The PPG described how the service valued feedback from the group and people using the service. They also spoke of how leaders consulted and involved the PPG when planning changes to the service to make sure these achieved positive outcomes for people.

The service’s NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) results showed people were highly positive about the service. Between December 2025 and May 2026, the overall monthly rate for people who would recommend the practice was between 94% and 97%. For example, in May 2026 the service received 692 responses from people about their experience and 83% (574 people) reported it was very good and 11% (79 people) reported it was good. The remaining people reported neither good nor poor, poor, very poor or don’t know. We were also shown unverified evidence the service had achieved consistently high and improved results year on year as well.