Lower Farm Health Centre

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 staff protected people from avoidable harm and made sure care was delivered from environments that were clean and well maintained. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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 assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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

The service had made sure equipment, facilities, and technology supported the delivery of safe care but had not always detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. The current building is leased. The service had a business continuity plan which was regularly reviewed and outlined how the service should continue to operate in the event of a disruption.
Appropriate systems were in place for safe storage of blank prescription stationery, and the provider had effective systems to manage and respond to safety and medicine alerts.
We reviewed the electrical installation certificate and identified a small number of queries regarding compliance. The service was able to provide evidence that the associated risks had been assessed, mitigated and managed appropriately.
Clinical waste was stored securely, and appropriate waste management systems were in place.
During our visit, we noted that the treatment room lacked adequate ventilation. The health centre had already recognised this concern and was in the process of obtaining quotations for the installation of an air conditioning unit to improve ventilation and maintain a comfortable environment for people using the service and staff.
Following the assessment, evidence was provided to show that all the above areas had been satisfactorily addressed and new processes implemented to ensure ongoing compliance.
 

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.
The service had a staff recruitment policy in place; however, we found procedures had not always been fully implemented as recruitment checks had not been carried out. For example, we identified gaps in staff immunisation records, we also found that 1 member of staff had commenced employment without a satisfactory reference being received. In all the 5 staff records we had sampled there was no evidence that a physical and mental health declaration had been obtained for all staff. Post inspection, additional evidence was provided and action taken to ensure safe recruitment would be taking place.
The service employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included GPs, health centre nurses, and a pharmacist. Leaders ensured staff were up to date with their training which the service had deemed mandatory and operated 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 cleaning schedules available, which outlined how staff should clean the building and its equipment. The service demonstrated how these were monitored for completion to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements. During our onsite visit, the service's premises and a sample of equipment reviewed was noted to be visibly clean. The service’s infection prevention and control lead conducted regular risk assessments and audits to ensure compliance and took action where necessary to mitigate any identified risks. Staff had completed relevant training in infection prevention and control.
The health centre IPC lead had carried out an infection prevention and control (IPC) audit in January 2026 scoring 97%, 3 minor areas had been identified. An action plan had been completed to address the minor issues identified.
 

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.