Rochester Road Surgery Also known as Dr Jawad Ahmad Saad

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 that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

This is the first assessment for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as good.

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to relevant changes in people’s needs.

Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff understood that people might have diverse health and care needs and were committed to tailoring the approach to each person. For example, longer appointments were offered for people with complex needs and adjusted communication methods to meet individual preferences. The service routinely offered continuity of care through a named clinician. People were supported to see the same clinician where possible, which helped ensure consistent care and informed decision-making.

People were supported to access services in ways that met their individual needs. This included access to interpreter services, accessible information and longer appointments where appropriate. Staff also considered cultural and religious preferences. For example, clinicians discussed treatment options with patients to ensure these aligned with their personal beliefs and values wherever possible.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. People were informed as to how to access their care records.

Information regarding services, appointment booking, health promotion and local support services was available through the service’s website and information displayed within the main and branch surgeries. People were signposted to relevant community and support services where appropriate.

However, we found that information regarding the service’s complaints process was not displayed within the main and branch surgeries. Whilst staff were able to explain how people could raise concerns, there was limited visible information to support people in understanding how to make a complaint. Following feedback, the service addressed this by displaying complaint posters in public facing areas.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. We reviewed complaint records and saw that the service had an established system to respond to complaints. The service acknowledged where improvements were needed. For example, following a data breach, staff were reminded of their responsibilities regarding people’s confidentiality, obtaining appropriate consent, and the lawful disclosure of people’s information.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. There was a triage system to assist staff to prioritise people according to clinical needs.

People could access the service in a way that suited their needs, including online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were located on the ground floor. However, an entrance ramp was not available at the branch location. Following our assessment, the service told us this had been installed.

During our onsite visit, we reviewed the service’s appointment system and found the next face-to-face and telephone appointments with a GP at the main surgery were 7 August 2026 and the next available routine appointment with a practice nurse was 11 August 2026. The next face to face and telephone appointment with a GP at the branch surgery was 13 August 2026 and the next available routine appointment with a practice nurse was 19 August 2026.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey (2026) showed 74% of respondents responded positively to how easy it was to contact the service on the phone which was above the national average of 73%. Further, 62% of respondents responded positively to the overall experience of contacting the service, which was above the national average of 57%.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address barriers to improving people’s experience through people’s feedback, complaints, significant events, clinical discussions and staff observations.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, leaders told us they were aware of people who may require additional support, including older people, those living with frailty, mobility difficulties, sensory impairments, complex health needs, communication barriers, and people who were vulnerable or digitally excluded.

Where appropriate, longer appointments were arranged to allow sufficient time for assessment and discussion, and home visits were available for people who were housebound. Interpreting services were available to support people whose first language was not English, and information could be provided in a way that met individual communication needs.

The service had also reviewed appointment arrangements for babies, children and people requiring more complex assessments. Staff told us they had recognised that consultations such as baby checks and reviews for complex or vulnerable patients often required additional time. This was discussed within the practice team, and appointment arrangements had been adjusted where appropriate to allow longer consultations when needed.

Results from the National GP patient survey (2026) showed that 82% responded positively about their overall experience of the GP practice which was above the national average of 77%.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.