Lowther Medical 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 people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to fit and proper persons employed.

This service scored 62 (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.

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

We found the practice had recruited and permitted one member of staff to begin working without a current Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check in place. There was no evidence that the practice had conducted risk assessments to mitigate the risks associated with this. However, leaders told us that new staff were not allowed to work alone or access records independently until their DBS clearance had been received.

The service had not managed the risks associated with healthcare infections, as they did not have a robust process for assuring themselves that all staff (clinical and non-clinical) were protected from infection by checking appropriate routine pre-exposure immunisation. This was in contraindication to guidance issued by the UK Health Security Agency contained within the Green Book Immunisations against Infectious Diseases.

The practice did not have an appraisal policy in place at the time of inspection, although leaders told us it was under development. Staff reported inconsistencies in the appraisal process, and records showed that some staff had not had an appraisal since 2023. The provider told us this was partly due to a transition to a new HR system launched in late 2024. However, we found the practice had started to take action to address this and the appraisal matrix showed that appraisals for those staff members were scheduled for May 2025.

We were unable to confirm that evidence of satisfactory conduct in previous employment had been obtained at the time of recruitment, as this was not available when we asked to view it. However, copies of references were provided after the visit.

There were a range of clinical and non-clinical roles within the practice. Training was up to date; staff had been working within their agreed areas of competence.

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

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