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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment, the rating had changed to 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.

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.

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.

At the inspection in May 2025, we found the practice had recruited and permitted 1 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. At this inspection we saw evidence that all staff had the required checks in place and that processes had now been initiated to ensure that all new staff had all necessary checks carried out before their employment began. We were sent copies of a new pre-employment checklist which was now used to ensure that checks were carried out and documented.

In May 2025, the practice did not have an appraisal policy in place, and staff reported inconsistencies in the appraisal process. Records showed that some staff had not had an appraisal since 2023. We saw that after the last inspection the practice had begun to take action to address this and that appraisals were taking place, and in January 2026 we saw an appraisal policy was now in place.

At the last inspection, 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. At this inspection in January 2026, we saw that an audit of the immunisation status for all clinical staff had been completed, and the immunisation status of all staff (except for 2 members who were on long-term absence) had now been received and filed in recruitment files and documented on the staff immunisation status spreadsheet. All staff now completed a staff immunisation risk assessment with the practice manager and a clinician in accordance with the provider’s new staff immunisation policy procedure. Staff with underlying medical conditions had a personalised assessment and personal risk assessment to ensure they were appropriately protected.

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.