Rochester Road Surgery Also known as Dr Jawad Ahmad Saad

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

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

This service scored 69 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. For example, a data breach was reported and investigated. The service identified the cause and shared learning with staff to prevent a similar incident occurring again. People felt supported to raise concerns and felt staff treated them with compassion and understanding. Representatives from the Patient Participation Group (PPG) felt the service took concerns seriously and were transparent in their approach. Managers encouraged staff to raise concerns when things went wrong. The service had processes for staff to report incidents, near misses and safety events. There was a system to record and investigate complaints, and when things went wrong, staff apologised and gave people support. Learning from incidents and complaints was shared with relevant staff to help prevent recurrence.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. There were systems in place for processing information relating to new people. Referrals and test results were managed in a timely way.

The service had an established and effective system to monitor urgent suspected cancer referrals.

The service did not always ensure safeguarding information was consistently recorded across all relevant records.

The service’s clinical system alerted staff of children that were on the at-risk register. We looked at a sample of 5 records of children that were subject to safeguarding at the time of our assessment. Out of the records we reviewed, 4 did not have an alert placed on other family or household members in line with the service’s own process. In addition, one child's record did not appear to be linked to any family or household members within the clinical system. During our review of the records, we identified the appropriate household member and the record was updated. After our onsite visit, the service told us they reviewed their registers of children at risk and added alerts to all relevant family members and household members. The provider told us this would be regularly reviewed to ensure safeguarding systems were working efficiently.

However, staff had access to adult and children safeguarding leads and could also escalate concerns externally if required. Safeguarding policies were in place and known to staff, who were appropriately trained in safeguarding procedures. The service maintained a list of vulnerable people and acted on concerns, working in partnership with other organisations.

There were notices in the service that advised people chaperones were available if required.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Emergency equipment was available and maintained. Staff could recognise a deteriorating person and knew of action to take. People were advised on risks related to their condition and actions to take if their condition deteriorated.

In the 2026 National GP Patient Survey, approximately 91% of respondents reported being involved in decisions about their care, which was in line with the national average.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Contracts were in place to ensure the premises were maintained.

A fire risk assessment was completed for the main surgery (Rochester Road Surgery) and branch surgery (Beaumont Drive Surgery) in July 2026. Risks had been identified, an action plan was in place, and progress had been made in addressing and resolving the findings. For example, removing combustible materials. Staff had completed annual fire safety training, and the service carried out regular fire drills to help ensure compliance with safety protocols. Staff appointed as fire marshals received appropriate training.

There were established systems to identify, manage and mitigate risks to people. Health and safety risk assessments had been completed in September 2025.

Contracts were also in place to ensure the premises and equipment were maintained. For example, routine legionella testing, portable appliance testing and equipment calibration were routinely conducted by an external company.

Records demonstrated fire alarms and emergency lighting were tested regularly.

There was a business continuity plan in place which was monitored and reviewed.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received support. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff training was up to date, learning needs and development of staff was managed appropriately. We reviewed a sample of staff training records and saw all staff had received training appropriate to their role. We reviewed a sample of recruitment files and found safe recruitment practices were followed. We also saw evidence of clinical supervision which included consultation reviews to ensure staff were working within their agreed areas of competence.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The service had a designated infection prevention and control (IPC) lead and all staff had received relevant training. Cleaning schedules were in place and followed.

The service had completed IPC audits for the main surgery in September 2025 and the branch surgery in December 2025, which identified areas requiring action. An action plan had been developed to address the findings, and we saw evidence that progress had been made to mitigate identified risks. For example, the replacement of damaged pedal bins. Further actions remained in progress, for example repainting wall surfaces, and these were documented within the action plan. During our onsite visit, carpeted flooring was observed in both locations. The service provided evidence that the carpets were subject to regular deep cleaning, with records demonstrating this had been completed in December 2025 and May 2026.

Staff had access to gloves, aprons and masks to mitigate the risk of infection to people. Policies outlined how staff should triage and manage people with potentially contagious diseases.

Clinical staff used single use items and had access to body fluid spillage kits to mitigate the risk of infection to people.

The service could not provide assurance medicines were safe to use at the branch location. However, medicines and treatments met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. The service involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Fridge temperatures were only monitored at the branch surgery on days when the service was open (Monday, Tuesday and Thursday). There was no system in place to provide assurance that refrigerated medicines had been maintained within the required temperature range during periods when the site was closed. However, we saw fridge temperatures were routinely monitored at the main surgery.

Following our feedback, the service installed temperature data loggers in the medicine fridge. These devices automatically record fridge temperatures at regular intervals, providing continuous monitoring when the service is open and closed. The service told us this would allow them to obtain assurance that refrigerated medicines were stored within the required temperature range.

We found that prescription stationery had not been fully tracked throughout the service in line with national guidance. While records were maintained of prescription forms issued to clinicians, there was no documented evidence to confirm that unused prescription forms were routinely returned and reconciled at the end of the day. Staff told us this process was taking place; however, in the absence of records, the service could not provide assurance that blank prescription stationery was being consistently monitored and tracked in accordance with national guidance. We raised this with the service and following the assessment, the service confirmed they had updated their system for prescription tracking.

However, our remote clinical searches conducted on 6 August 2026 showed medicine reviews for people using the service were up to date and people prescribed high-risk medicines were effectively monitored.

We also reviewed the records of people with asthma who had been prescribed 12 or more reliever inhalers in the previous 12 months. Overall, asthma monitoring and review processes were found to be appropriate. However, none of the 5 records reviewed contained documented advice regarding Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (MART), which is recommended for consideration under national asthma guidance. MART is an asthma treatment approach where a person uses a single combination inhaler for regular maintenance treatment and symptom relief, rather than using separate preventer and reliever inhalers. The findings were shared with leaders, who were receptive to the feedback and acknowledged the learning identified.

The service had effective systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls. We reviewed records which showed alerts were logged and monitored using a tracking spreadsheet. Delegated staff recorded the alerts received, the actions required, and the outcomes of any searches undertaken. Records demonstrated that people were identified and reviewed where appropriate. The service documented actions taken and monitored them until completion.

During our remote clinical searches, we reviewed a sample of 5 records relating to a safety alert for people prescribed certain medicines used to treat type 2 diabetes. The alert required healthcare professionals to ensure people taking these medicines were informed about potential adverse effects and when to seek medical attention. All 5 records showed that people had received appropriate advice and information in line with the requirements of the safety alert.

Staff regularly checked the stock levels and expiry dates for all medicines, including emergency medicines and vaccines.

Staff took steps to ensure they prescribed medicines appropriately to optimise care outcomes, including antibiotics. Prescribing data reviewed as part of our assessment confirmed this. For example, the number of antimicrobials issued by the service was lower than local and national averages (antimicrobials should only be prescribed when clinically necessary to counter the risk of bacterial resistance).