Drs Hussain & Kotekar Also known as New Road Surgery

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 people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as requires improvement because the practice did not have fully effective processes to ensure actions had been taken in response to identified health and safety risks. This included shortfalls in relation to infection prevention and control procedures, fire safety, safeguarding processes and emergency medicines.At this assessment, improvements had been made and the rating had changed to good.

This service scored 72 (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 learning culture during this inspection. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating.

We did not look at safe systems, pathways and transitions during this inspection. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating.

The provider worked collaboratively with individuals and healthcare partners to understand their perspectives on safety and identify the most effective ways to achieve it. Its approach was person-centred, focusing on improving people's lives while upholding their right to live free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. Safeguarding concerns were shared promptly and appropriately. Policies were in place and understood by staff, who had received appropriate safeguarding training. Since our last inspection, the practice had made significant improvements to its management of safeguarding, including the maintenance of registers for vulnerable adults and children. The practice had sought advice from safeguarding professionals, and the registers were well organised, readily accessible to GPs and reviewed regularly. The safeguarding lead had been allocated protected time to support this work.

We did not look at involving people to manage risks during this inspection. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Since out last inspection significant improvements had been made to the practice. Carpets had been replaced with easy to clean flooring in the waiting area, the interior had been redecorated, new windows had been put in, and additional space had been made to improve working conditions for staff. The baby change area had been improved and was safer for families to use by reducing the risk of cross infection. Senior staff completed regular audits on the premises to ensure the building was clean and to address any maintenance issues.

We did not look at safe and effective staffing during this inspection. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. Staff identified and controlled risks associated with the spread of infection and shared concerns promptly with the appropriate agencies. Since our last inspection, the provider had improved its infection prevention and control (IPC) checks and audits. Leaders were continuing to develop these processes to make them more robust and tailored to the practice; however, we saw evidence of progress during this inspection.

Vaccine storage fridges were clean and monitored regularly, reducing the risk of infection and ensuring the safe storage of vaccines. The carpet in the waiting area had been replaced with an easy-to-clean surface, and the baby changing area had been redecorated and was fit for purpose. Potential infection control risks within GP consultation rooms had been addressed, and a post-minor surgery audit had been completed. This showed no patients had developed an infection following a procedure.

The provider ensured medicines and treatments were delivered safely and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. People were involved in planning their care and reviewing their medicines and were supported to manage them safely.

Staff received regular training and competency assessments and followed processes for the safe prescribing, storage, administration and recording of medicines. Prescription stationery and medical gases were stored securely, with appropriate risk assessments in place.

Leaders had assessed and mitigated risks where emergency medicines were not held on site. Effective systems were in place to manage medicines safety alerts and recalls, and staff ensured people received the required monitoring for higher-risk medicines.

We did not undertake clinical searches as part of this focussed inspection. These were completed as part of the previous comprehensive inspection in September 2025.