Phoenix Futures National Specialist Family Service

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met client’s needs.
At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Staff completed the appropriate assessments and demonstrated a person-centred approach which ensured they responded quickly and effectively to the needs of the clients. Accurate information was readily available, and given to clients and their families when needed, or requested.
Training and processes enabled the service to identify possible bias, discrimination and barriers to treatment, and how to act on this to support clients appropriately. Clients' families, and people who knew them well were encouraged and supported to be involved in all aspects of their care and treatment.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

We scored the service a 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at making sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.


Care plans were personalised to the needs of the individual and were reviewed regularly. Staff reviewed and updated risk assessments when levels of risk changed and actions were put in place to mitigate risk and respond to the change. For example, if a clients physical health declined during detox.
Discharge plans were individualised and related to personal circumstances. For example, care plans included action to take if a client chose to self-discharge during treatment and ‘early move on packs’ were issued giving information and advice regarding any support groups and helplines. The service held weekly community meetings, where clients had the opportunity to raise any issues. The community meetings were very well attended by clients and various staff roles. We saw evidence of issues being raised at community meetings being acted on in a timely fashion.
Staff based clients care around individual needs and preferences. The service provided brand new cookware for one client to meet their spiritual needs, and staff were also flexible with the times certain clients could use mobile phones to contact family due to their individual needs. We also found that group times and therapeutic support sessions could be amended due to individual client circumstances, such as fatigue from childbirth.
Staff empowered clients to make their own decisions about their care through involvement in the ‘therapeutic community’. This embraced and encouraged cognitive behavioural therapy methods, developing coping strategies, parenting, life and social skills, peer support work and the embedding of daily work and activity and work routines.
All clients we spoke with during our assessment said they felt safe, supported and were treated as individuals at Phoenix Futures Specialist National Family Service.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had an exceptional understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service had a deep understanding of the health and care needs of clients and their local communities; therefore, care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Clients had consistent staff teams who knew and supported them well. The service had integrated, specialist roles to enhance the therapeutic recovery treatment model and provide clients with knowledge, understanding, skills, recovery tools and emotional management techniques to support independent and safe living.

The service understood the demographics of the people that use the service and we saw evidence of understanding different ethnic and cultural needs. The service could access literature in different languages, when necessary and had areas that could be used for prayer and different cultural and religious celebrations were observed by the service.

Staff supported clients to maintain contact with their families while in treatment. Where appropriate, family members were able to attend care reviews and family visits were facilitated once thoroughly risk assessed. The service recognised that clients were often from different areas of the country and ‘virtual visits’ were offered to family members who could not travel to the service.

Families are supported to visit clients from the point of admission. Clients could also call and facetime family members at pre-agreed times and staff were able to make dynamic, flexible decisions on these times that were appropriate for the client’s daily routine. There was a policy in place for any children visiting the service. The services admission and assessment process actively supported clients to relocate children's schools and nurseries as well as supporting parents throughout family court processes to remain primary care provider for their children.

Facilities and premises were appropriate for the services being delivered. Managers completed various health and safety checks and environmental risk assessments, including fire equipment checks, infection control audits, and emergency equipment checks.

The service had robust, strong and effective relationships with external organisations that helped meet individual clients and their children’s needs. The service worked in partnership with local charities, religious groups, schools and community groups to provide joined up care both with services local to Phoenix Futures Specialist National Family Service as well as services from the clients’ place of residence upon leaving treatment.

The service provided continuity and aftercare provision in the form of a 'sustainable recovery team' which supports clients nationally in their recovery through environmental strategies, green conservation programmes and long-term behavioural support. This combined therapeutic horticulture, growing produce and carbon-reducing conservation tasks to aid substance use recovery using a bio-psychosocial framework to link personal rehabilitation with positive environmental stewardship.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made referrals to external agencies when required and notified external bodies as needed. This included contacting the police, social services and making safeguarding referrals where appropriate. Staff had completed training in data protection and compliance with training at the time of our inspection was 100%. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a legal framework that sets guidelines for the collection and processing of personal information.
Information was available on treatment, local service, client rights and how to complain. There was information boards located around the building and clients were provided with information about how to complain in their welcome pack. Leaflets were available in different formats, such as easy read format and other spoken languages.

We scored the service a 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service was dynamic and responsive in enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

We saw evidence of feedback received being used to improve the service. Activity schedules have been adjusted due to feedback from clients. They always involved clients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The service had a culture of open and honest discussions, and any issues were dealt with immediately.

Information regarding how to complain was available throughout the building and clients told us that they would feel confident that if a complaint was raised, it would be handled swiftly and effectively by the service.
Staff told us that the complaints policy was easily accessible and that they would know how to handle complaints appropriately.

The service had a robust complaints policy that included individual roles in management of complaints, timescales for completion, how to log and record complaints, the appeal process, feedback and continuous service improvement.
The service had not received any complaints in the last 12 months.

Feedback and outcomes of investigations were shared in team meetings, supervision sessions and if necessary reviewed at a serious incident panel.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.


Staff at the service ensured clients with mobility issues needs were met wherever possible, however, the building wasn’t equipped with a lift to the upper or lower floors, but access ramps were installed to the ground floor.
Staff made reasonable adjustments for clients, such as flexible group times.

The service actively supported a very marginalised demographic in their community. The service challenges stigma and is part of the anti-stigma campaign. The service supported parents to retain parental responsibility and advocated for clients to provide equity during family court, care proceedings or health inequalities.

We saw evidence of clients being accepted to the service where other treatment providers had previously refused. The service worked in collaboration with other professionals to provide access to safe and effective care. The service also advocated for its services to be used as an alternative to custodial sentences.
Clients had access to local mental health services, health visitors, midwives, GP’s, and Dentists as well as local schools for children that were too old for the on-site nursery. Clients also had access to a specialist substance misuse doctor, and the service was within a reasonable travelling distance to local acute hospitals.
Admissions were triaged through pre-admission assessment calls and meetings as well as pre-admission MDT meetings.
Clients deemed unsuitable to be admitted to the service, were deferred rather than refused. We were told that rather than refusing an admission, staff would work with the individual and partner agencies to try and find a suitable alternative treatment option and advocated for alternate treatment options instead of custodial sentences.

Staff planned and managed discharge well and had reports and checklists to follow to assist in the effective, safe discharge of clients. ‘Move on’ packs were issued to clients upon discharge, which included information such as emergency contacts, local support groups and harm reduction advice.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the clients using the service felt empowered to give their views. Clients we spoke with felt that they would be able to give their feedback about the service without any issues. We saw evidence of client feedback being submitted and subsequently addressed, for example, ‘You said, we did’ boards and community meeting minutes.
Staff completed a workbook of reflective learning as well as online training in equality, diversity and inclusion. This training formed part of the staff's continual professional development program and compliance rates were at 93% at the time of our inspection.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of equality, diversity and inclusion and described protected characteristics in detail. The service considered and addressed barriers to access for specific communities and those with protected characteristics.

The service had designated equality and diversity leads and facilitated equality and diversity working groups and learning weeks.

Managers were considerate about the needs of specific communities and client groups and noted how they would adapt the service to attempt to meet the needs of these clients for example, offering space to pray if this was important to the client.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of clients with complex needs. For example, GP summaries had been requested.
We found services such as social care had been involved in treatment and in discharge planning.
The service had an early discharge exit strategy, which would be implemented if somebody needed or wanted to be discharged from the service early. Clients we spoke with told us that everyone was aware of these and what would happen should this situation arise.

Clients were supported to achieve sustainable recovery, this included locating and procuring appropriate accommodation and providing support upon leaving treatment.

The service provided after care once somebody left treatment. Move on plans were co-created between the service and the client. A policy was in place to ensure that clients are safely moved on and after care was provided.