Lighthouse Group Practice

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.

We assessed one quality statement in the Safe key question. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating has stayed the same.

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.

The service had taken action to strengthen recruitment and staffing processes. A dedicated Human Resources (HR) officer had been appointed, and a comprehensive audit of staff files had been completed. Employment files were updated to meet Schedule 3 requirements. The HR officer now provided monthly reports to business partners, covering key areas of workforce compliance, including training, appraisal, recruitment, induction, and disciplinary processes.

Clinical supervision had been embedded across the clinical team. Regular and documented supervision was now provided for pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, healthcare assistants, general practice assistants, physician associates, practice nurses and advanced nurse practitioners. Supervision included structured case reviews, clinical discussion sessions, prescribing audits and competency assessments. Records of supervision were consistently maintained and stored securely in staff personnel files.

Competency records were now maintained for all staff and reviewed during one-to-one meetings and annual appraisals. Any gaps found in records were addressed with targeted training or refresher sessions. The service had also embedded mandatory training monitoring through its internal ‘Practice Index’ platform, with compliance reported monthly to the leadership team. Timely reminders and follow-ups were issued to ensure staff remained compliant. Staff we spoke with advised that this had been effective.

Non-medical prescribing was subject to ongoing audit and review. Audit findings were discussed in clinical supervision sessions and incorporated into the appraisal process. The service’s quality lead ensured prescribing audits were included in the service audit timetable to support continuous monitoring and reflection.

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.