Phoenix Futures National Specialist Family Service

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.
At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led.
Leaders and the culture of the service promoted good quality, person-centred care. The senior leadership team had action plans, strategies, policies, and procedures in place which maintained good governance, oversight, and effective overall management of the service.
The service had clear vision and values about the client experience and the quality of care and support they provided. The service had a culture of openness, honesty, and inclusion which encouraged and supported all staff to provide feedback. Where appropriate lessons had been learnt, and this maintained a consistent drive for improvement.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had a very clear shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and an exceptional understanding of the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Phoenix Futures National Specialist Family Service had a clear shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and an exceptional understanding of the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. The provider’s vision and values were clearly communicated and embedded into daily practice. The vision and values of the organisation were also shared effectively through a comprehensive induction programme, which was completed by all staff.

The organisations strategy focused on delivering safe, effective and compassionate high-quality care while promoting equality and partnership working, always putting people at the centre of everything they did. Leaders ensured all staff received regular and clear communication promoting the shared goals and direction of the organisation. Staff felt included and valued, which fostered and promoted a positive culture within the service.

Managers ensured staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in their work. The service works on guiding principles of “passion for recovery, respect for history , and the relentless drive to be the best”. Staff we spoke with felt valued and proud to work for and advocate for clients using the service.

The organisation facilitated roadshows which took place across the UK. Phoenix Futures roadshows was an ongoing initiative which allowed existing, and new colleagues to join together and gain insight into the organisation’s values, culture and direction within the national substance misuse service landscape. Leaders held regular engagement meetings with staff which fostered a culture of shared identity, ownership and purpose. Managers encouraged
responsibility throughout their teams, with staff members having lead roles, such as equality and diversity leads.

Staff and people using the service had opportunities to contribute to discussions about the strategy for the service. Managers shared updates through regular meetings, and internal information sharing, ensuring all staff were kept informed. Both clinical and non-clinical staff benefited from tailored training packages to ensure they understood the environment and the needs of the people they supported, such as substance specific training and trauma informed care.

Staff could explain how budgets were formulated for individual clients and how the service worked to deliver high quality care within the budgets available.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness, and honesty.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles.
Managers and senior leaders worked well together to ensure effective oversight of the service and were experienced in the field.
Leaders had a good understanding of the service they managed. They could explain clearly how the team was working to provide good quality care. Leaders were visible and approachable for clients and staff.
Senior leaders regularly attended the service, and staff reported they felt included in the organisation.
Leadership development opportunities were available, including opportunities for staff to complete specialist training that was relevant to their role. Managers had completed leadership training and were supported to develop their skills.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service had policies and procedures to support whistleblowing and freedom to speak up, and staff told us they knew how to access the policy and who to contact. Local managers promoted an open and honest culture within the service. Staff we spoke with understood these policies and procedures and felt comfortable using them without fear of reprisal.
Clients, carers and external agencies had opportunities to give feedback on the service in a manner that reflected their individual needs. Managers and staff had access to the feedback from clients, carers and external agencies and used it to make improvements. Clients and carers and external agencies were involved in decision-making about changes to the service. One example of feedback being used to improve the service was the commencement of domestic violence awareness sessions for clients and staff, working in collaboration with a local domestic abuse charity to ensure continuity of care and smooth transitions when leaving the care of the service.
Client and carer feedback also led to amendments in the facility’s welcome pack, availability of sensory toys for children and babies and also changes to the restricted items list.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff we spoke with felt that the provider was supportive when it came to personal circumstances that required flexible working. Managers put reasonable adjustments in place for staff where required to help them carry out their role such as flexible shift times and patterns to support planned surgery and recovery.
The service employed staff who had their own lived experiences, and they told us that Phoenix Futures Specialist National Family Service was a “lovely” place to work with very supportive and visible management.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

Managers ensured there was a clear framework of what must be discussed at the service, team or directorate level in team meetings to ensure that essential information, such as learning from incidents and complaints, was shared and discussed.
There was evidence of a clear reporting structure with incidents and unplanned events logs present, as well as business continuity plans. Staff had implemented recommendations from reviews of incidents, complaints and safeguarding alerts.
Staff undertook or participated in local clinical audits regarding safeguarding, complaints, infection control and medication. There was a risk register in place which was appropriate for the service and staff knew what it included and how to contribute to it. The audits were sufficient to provide assurance and staff acted on the results when needed. Feedback from audits was discussed in team meetings and where necessary in 1-1 supervision with staff.
Staff understood the arrangements for working with other teams, both within the provider and externally, to meet the needs of the clients. Information governance systems included confidentiality of client records.
Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work. The information technology infrastructure, including the telephone system, worked well and helped to improve the quality of care. All staff carried mobile phones when moving around the building and accessible telephones were positioned throughout the facility.
Managers had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and client care. Information was in an accessible format, and was timely, accurate and identified areas for improvement. This included a live training matrix to monitor compliance of mandatory training and supervision and training records.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service clearly understood and carried out their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, and services worked seamlessly for people. They always share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Staff and leaders were open, transparent and effectively engaged with external stakeholders and partners in care. They collaborated with commissioners, care managers and other relevant organisations to support and maintain service delivery and integrated care.

Senior leaders engaged with external stakeholders and key organisations to support care. This demonstrated commitment to partnership and communities by working collaboratively with local authorities, GP practices, dentists, social care, community drug and alcohol services, perinatal mental health services, midwives, schools, local charities and voluntary services where appropriate to provide integrated support for families affected by substance use.

Leaders shared learning across local and national networks and used partnerships to support and drive improvement within the service. For example, collaborative working and information sharing with the Department of health, national drug treatment monitoring system (NDTMS) and shared care through integrated pathways. The service was an accredited member of the European federation of Therapeutic Communities (EFTC). The European federation of therapeutic communities’ membership spanned 25 countries across Europe, and supported the effective programmes and models of treatment, provided channelled communication and co-ordination between regional services, national governments and European bodies, and promoted co-ordinated practice exchange and information sharing between substance misuse services.

The service worked collaboratively with the hepatitis C Trust who provided regular screening, education, harm reduction advice and effective access to treatment pathways. Staff and leaders promoted networking, and engaged with people, communities, and partners to share learning that resulted in continuous improvements to the service. Networks were used to identify new or innovative ideas, and practice that could lead to better recovery outcomes for people using the service.

Feedback from external partners was very positive and gave examples where staff at Phoenix Futures Specialist National Family Service worked collaboratively with external services to support client care and receive better support for their needs by sharing information.
A GP supporting clients at Phoenix Futures Specialist National Family Service said,
“I have worked with Phoenix family service for the best part of 15 years. The opportunity it offers families is unique, should be celebrated, and utilised wherever possible. They are compassionate and caring, helping families grow together and take the next step towards living independently in the community”.

Clients and staff could meet with members of the provider’s senior leadership team and commissioners to give feedback.
The service took part in local events and community activities such as emergency services day, world book day, International Women’s Day and Pride.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.


Staff were given the time and support to consider opportunities for improvements and innovation and this led to changes. This took place through different governance meetings at all levels across the service, where staff reviewed data and discussed and implemented actions, as well as through staff consultation processes and working parties.
Innovations were taking place in the service such as work around the increase of ketamine use and its impact. The service was working alongside The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to advise on a government report.
As it is not always possible for potential clients and their families to visit prior to admission, a video tour of Phoenix Future National Specialist Family Service has been developed and displayed on the facility’s website to aid clients to decide whether Phoenix Future National Specialist Family Service was the right facility for them to receive treatment.
The service was continuously assessing the way it structured its treatment programme to ensure that it remained up to date, relevant and met the needs of the local community. Staff were also making use of technology where possible, for example to receive referrals, communicate with clients and gather feedback.
Staff used quality improvement methods and knew how to apply them; these included a range of appropriate clinical audit programmes. Staff could access trackers on electronic devices such as tablets and laptops to identify where improvement in compliance was needed. This has resulted in better oversight of training compliance since our last inspection.