The Care Quality Commission
  • Community
  • Community substance misuse service

The Lighthouse - Horizon Drug and Alcohol Recovery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

102 Dickson Road, Blackpool, Lancashire, FY1 2BU (01253) 205156

Provided and run by:
Delphi Medical Consultants Limited

All Inspections

16 and 17 January 2024

During a routine inspection

Our rating of this location stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

  • The service provided safe care. The premises where clients were seen were safe and clean. The number of clients on the caseload of the teams, and of individual members of staff, was not too high to prevent staff from giving each client the time they needed. Staff assessed and managed risk well and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
  • The service had improved risk assessment and care plans since the last inspection and had developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. Staff engaged in clinical audit to evaluate the quality of care they provided.
  • The teams included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients under their care. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team and relevant services outside the organisation.
  • Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness and understood the individual needs of clients. They actively involved clients in decisions and care planning.
  • The service was easy to access. Staff planned and managed discharge well and had alternative pathways for people whose needs it could not meet.
  • The service was well led, and the governance processes ensured that its procedures ran smoothly.

However:

  • Some equipment requiring calibration did not have an up-to-date sticker confirming when calibration was due.
  • The clinic room was cluttered and did not have an appropriate examination bed.
  • Not all clients had received a medical review every 6 months in line with the providers policy.
  • The service had not reached its 90% target of its staff completing mandatory training.
  • The service did not always complete wider physical health checks as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Where the service was providing checks, for example fibro liver scans and lung checks these were not captured as part of the physical healthcare notes.
  • At the time of our inspection the service was not delivering a community detoxification programme. The service was in the process of reestablishing the programme.

26 June 2019

During a routine inspection

We rated Horizon Drug and Alcohol Recovery as good because:

  • Clinical premises where clients were seen were safe and clean. There were polices and procedures regarding the safety of medicines. Staff assessed and managed risk well and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
  • The service provided a range of treatments that were informed by best-practice guidance and suitable to the needs of the clients. The service was working well with other agencies. Managers ensured that staff received training, supervision and appraisals.
  • There were enough staff who were suitably trained. Staff understood the services vision and values. Staff felt supported.
  • Clients were encouraged to live healthier lives. Clients described staff as kind and they involved them in their care. Families and carers also had access to support.
  • The service was easy to access. Complaints were dealt with appropriately and fairly. Leaders were visible in the service and available to staff and clients.

However,

  • Recovery plans had not improved since the last inspection. Recovery plans remained brief and with insufficient detail. Recovery plans did not contain all information regarding clients care and treatment.

13 September 2018

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We did not rate this service as this was a focussed inspection.

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

  • The service was not always safe. Risk assessments were of poor quality. Information included in risk assessments was vague and lacked detail. Information relating to clients risks were not always included in risk management plans. This included risks relating to children. This was a breach of a regulation. You can read more about it at the end of this report.

  • The service was not always effective. Recovery plans did not include detailed information to deliver safe care and treatment. Information contained in recovery plans did not match information contained within other documents. This was a breach of a regulation. You can read more about it at the end of this report. Staff supervision rates were below the providers target of every six to eight weeks. This meant that the service was not effectively monitoring supervision to improve the quality of the service. This was a breach of a regulation. You can read more about it at the end of this report.

  • Compliance with mandatory training was low. The service had improved and achieved an average compliance rate of 81%.

9 January 2018

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:

  • Risk assessments and recovery plans were poorly completed and had not been updated. There was a lack of detailed information regarding client’s needs.This was a breach of a regulation. You can read more about it at the end of this report.

  • Mandatory staff training and staff supervision rates were low. The senior management team were aware of issues specific to the team and were acting on plans to improve the service.

However, we also found the following areas of good practice:

  • There was easy and prompt access for clients to see doctors, non-medical prescribers and keyworker staff. Clients were assessed quickly following referral and other appointments were arranged without delay.

  • The clinic room was clean and tidy with the appropriate equipment that had been tested and maintained. There were enough rooms for client appointments and to facilitate group sessions.

  • There were a variety of group sessions available to clients. Clients specifically remarked that the group sessions were of excellent quality and benefit. One particular group had attracted funding from an external organisation to explore why the group was so successful. Other avenues of funding were being explored to address funding cuts particular to the service. This had been successful in two areas and other funding streams were currently being examined.

  • Staff were able to connect with clients and understand their needs. Staff displayed empathy and respect towards clients. Clients said staff were supportive and helpful in all areas. Client feedback had been used to inform the new structure and ethos of the service. There were numerous ways clients could give ongoing feedback regarding the service.

  • There was good inter-agency working with prisons and probation. A prison link worker was employed to liaise and facilitate care for clients newly released from prison.

  • The senior management team were a visible presence and were available to staff for advice and guidance when needed. The senior management team based themselves within the building on a regular basis to provide continuity of support and oversight of the team