You are here

Archived: Delphi Wellbeing Centre Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 16 April 2019

During a routine inspection

We rated Delphi Wellbeing Centre as good because;

  • The facilities and environment were spacious and clean. There were enough rooms to see clients. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of clients. All staff had received mandatory training. Staff received regular supervision and managers understood the service well and provided clinical and managerial leadership to staff.

  • Vulnerable groups were targeted and offered specific support to meet their needs. This included clients who were homeless or pregnant. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease screening was being planned at their service.

  • There was a range of interventions to support recovery. There were interventions aimed at maintaining and improving clients’ social networks, employment and educational opportunities. Family and community relationships were promoted. The service had a separate pathway for clients who had achieved abstinence. Support was specific to maintaining recovery.

  • Staff demonstrated a compassionate approach to understanding clients’ needs. Clients described feeling involved in their care and treatment decisions.

  • The service was flexible to meet the needs of clients with caring or employment commitments. Referrals were accepted and encouraged from a wide range of organisations. The service was responsive to feedback from patients, staff and external agencies.

  • Family and community relationships were promoted, and a family support practitioner delivered an accredited session and a family mediation pilot had just been implemented.

  • The service was well led by the managers and who understood the service needs. The governance structures in place were effective and ensured accountability, transparency and responsiveness of the service.

  • The service welcomed learning, continuous improvement and innovation. Staff were involved in a number of projects designed to enhance the service and improve client care and outcomes. A new structured family support group had been introduced.

  • The service had implemented a joint dental day initiative with the British Dental Association which had been operating for several years.  Staff had set up the initiative in response to clients often struggling to engage with dental services.

Inspection carried out on Desktop review June 2017

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

During this most recent desktop review in June 2017, we found that the services had addressed the issues that had caused us to issue one requirement notice following the November 2016 inspection.

We last inspected in November 2016 we found the service provider had made the following improvements to address the requirement notice, Regulation 15 HSCA 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 Premises and equipment.

At this desktop review, we found:

  • The service had stopped using the premises and facilities that were unsuitable at the Cookson Street location where staff visited from April 2017.

This means that the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.

Inspection carried out on 1,2 November 2016

During a routine inspection

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • The service was aware that the premises and facilities were unsuitable at the Cookson Street location where staff visited. The visiting rooms did not afford privacy for clients, the furniture was shabby and the workstations staff were using were unsuitable.

However, we found the following areas of good practice:

  • The building was clean, and safely maintained. Staff at the Harrowside location completed building safety assessments and regularly inspected equipment and facilities.

  • Compliance with mandatory training was high. Staff received regular clinical and managerial supervision and an annual appraisal.

  • Clients were involved in decisions about their treatment. Clients received a full clinical assessment before prescribing commenced.

  • Clients also received additional health and wellbeing assessment to consider and address any wider health needs.

  • Recovery was embedded in the delivery and culture of the service. Clients played an active role in their care and were supported to develop recovery capital.

    Recovery capital refers to social, physical, human and cultural resources a client needs to develop to help them achieve and sustain their personal recovery.

  • Care and treatment was underpinned by best practice and national guidance. Clients had access to mutual aid groups.

  • Clients we spoke to were positive about the service they received.

  • There were clear processes for access and discharge from the service. The service worked with referral and partner agencies to ensure appropriate assessments and treatments were delivered.

  • The service had a clear set of vision and values. Staff were aware of these and reflected them in their daily practice.

  • Staff morale was very positive. Staff felt supported by senior management within the service and the provider organisation. Senior managers were visible to staff and were considered approachable and available.

  • There was a governance structure to support the delivery of care. The service monitored performance through the national drug treatment monitoring system. Senior managers carried out regular quality checks at the service.