Phoenix Futures Wirral Residential Service

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity, and respect.

This key question has been rated outstanding. This meant people were truly respected and valued as individuals; and empowered as partners in their care in an exceptional service.

Staff respected people’s dignity and were highly empathetic and compassionate. Staff considered the individual needs of the patients and adapted them to support clients as individuals. Feedback that we received from clients was unanimously positive, clients who had completed the programme spoke highly of the sessions and support they received. Community members told us they felt they could be open with staff, and they felt empowered by the process.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

The service had an extraordinarily strong, person‑centred culture. Staff really understood and cared about the people they supported, especially when someone was going through a challenging time. They adapted the programme when needed and provide extra help, using their own lived experience to guide and support community members. People could also learn from and support each other.

Staff were highly motivated and consistently went above and beyond. They showed exceptional compassion, both towards community members they supported and towards each other. Community members gave examples of staff kindness and provided guidance and support in learning new and refreshing their skills. For example, working alongside them on reception to answer enquiries, transfer telephone calls and passing on information and prioritising responding to community members distress over work related tasks. In addition, staff would work alongside people to complete household tasks when they did not feel motivated to do so or were at risk of a lapse in their rehabilitation. Staff were described as demonstrating empathy in sharing their own experiences. Community members shared examples of staff helping them complete applications for housing and volunteer roles in shops and local services, when they lacked confidence to complete application forms. Community members shared their experience of staff supporting them to maintain contact with their families when maintaining relationships was difficult, this included visits to external meetings and visits to the service, when they and their family members were supported with dignity.

In interview staff from the sustainable recovery team (SRT) told us how the staff team gave them positive encouragement and direct support in applying for their roles, shadowing opportunities and developing or refreshing interview skills and they had been successful at interview.

Building honest and open relationships was a core focus. People who had completed the programme said it helped them rebuild and maintain relationships with their families. Families were involved throughout, and anyone who wanted family therapy could access it through a partner organisation.

The service used creative activities, for example creative writing, art, and daily group tasks, to help people reflect on their personal histories and express themselves. Community members took part in a wide range of sessions that encouraged them to speak openly and write about their experiences.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and was exceptional in how they made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The service took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

When we reviewed care records, we found that community members’ own views and voices were clearly recorded. The initial assessments captured people’s wishes, preferences, and choices so all staff understood what mattered to them. Staff also sought extra support where needed, involving other professionals, such as local mental health services for community members with more complex needs.

The service aimed to create an environment where community members felt safe to be open and honest while still treating each other with dignity and respect. Community members told us they felt able to speak openly in groups because others shared similar experiences. Having staff with lived experience also encouraged people to express their goals, backgrounds, and cultures.

During assessments and ongoing reviews, staff made sure that tools and adjustments were in place to help people fully take part. For example, community members whose first language was not English, or who had learning difficulties such as dyslexia, were paired with a peer support worker or another community member who could help with reading and writing. Buddying was usually done with someone who had similar service histories or experiences. Community members also had access to an advocacy service if they needed extra support.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment, and wellbeing.

The service’s treatment model was structured across 12 to 24 weeks dependent upon community members’ individual need. Information about the Therapeutic Community (TC) was provided at the referral and preadmission stage and staff were able to adapt activities to ensure they were appropriate to clients, recognising the potential for distress or reasonable adjustments.

Community members told us they understood the main principle of the TC, known as “community as method.” They explained that this meant both staff and community members worked together as one community, each playing a key role in supporting change. People described learning from each other, challenging one another in a positive way, and sharing responsibility for daily living. They felt this approach helped them change their attitudes, behaviours and lifestyles.

Community members said the TC’s structure helped them learn and practise positive social norms (everyday behaviours and expectations that guide how people interact in society.) for example, shaking hands, queuing, showing respect and holding doors open for others. They felt they had developed stronger social and people skills and taken on more personal responsibility through their involvement in the community.

They also described feeling a greater sense of confidence and belonging. They explained that contributing to the running of the service helped them support each other’s recovery. This included taking turns in roles such as working on reception, cooking, cleaning, taking part in group therapy, and being involved in decisions about how the community followed its rules.

Community members also told us they clearly understood the three stages of the TC programme:

Welcome House – settling in, learning expectations and getting used to the community.

Primary Stage – taking part in core therapeutic work and developing new skills.

Senior Stage – taking on more responsibility, leadership and preparing to move on.

People said progressing through these stages helped them gain better insight into their own behaviour, build social and practical skills, and take on increasing responsibility within the community. They felt this structure supported them to develop healthier routines, build stronger relationships, and gain the skills needed for long‑term recovery.

Community members were able to give feedback, and changes were made to the programme as result. For example, offering more inclusive physical activities like swimming, and offering more social activities outside of the local community.

The service monitored improvements through community meetings and feedback was recorded and shared with the community members with identified actions. Feedback consistently highlighted a clearer structure and routine as a major improvement. This included more organised medication times, structured groups, and regular morning and evening community meetings, which helped people feel safer, more settled and focused. Noticeable improvement in peer support highlighted people valued the buddy system, peer‑led community approach and visible recovery role models. Peer support was seen as vital to ongoing recovery and personal accountability. Community members reported the service acted on their feedback. Examples included new mattresses and toppers, kitchen equipment, a washing machine, improved lighting and soft furnishings. This showed people felt listened to and their concerns addressed.

Community members welcomed a wider and more varied range of activities. Improvements included gym trips, bowling, beach visits, cinema trips, creative sessions, drama groups, yoga and more engaging in recovery through nature (RTN) activities. Activities were described as uplifting and meaningful.

Feedback highlighted improvements in group sessions. Service users described groups as more structured, informative and well‑facilitated, including encounter groups, gender‑specific groups, recovery groups and training sessions.

Community members noticed improvements in the physical environment, including newly decorated bedrooms, clean communal areas, new curtains and blinds, reclothed pool table and general house maintenance. These changes contributed to a more comfortable and positive living space.

Community members commented positively on food, particularly after a change in supplier. Improved menus, better quality meals and involvement in menu planning were seen as positive developments. People also reported improved access to healthcare, including GP appointments, referrals and support with attending medical appointments. Medical care was described positively and gave people reassurance about their health needs being met.

Community members were engaged in the business plan for refurbishing the service. Positive feedback was received regarding the relocation and co-design around where pet kennels were to be located to, and the opportunity to develop this as a business, so community members could acquire business skills.

Community members had free time during the weekends, and were able to access additional activities, or have visitors.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional in how they listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Community members consistently told us that staff were caring, approachable, and understanding. Community members said staff responded quickly to their needs, offered the right support, and provided steady emotional encouragement. Staff were especially appreciated during challenging times, such as Christmas, when people felt their individual needs were recognised and supported.

Feedback showed that people felt listened to, respected, and valued. Many community members said they were grateful for the care they received and spoke positively about the supportive environment created by both staff and peers.

The service regularly gathered feedback throughout the programme and at the end of treatment. Comments from community meetings, questionnaires, and peer support sessions were used to make positive improvements and increase accessibility for clients.

Community members consistently reported that the service responded well to their practical needs. Requests for things like new mattresses, washing machines, kitchen equipment, lighting, and furnishings were dealt with promptly.

Activities were described as varied, inclusive, and regularly updated so people had meaningful options during their free time. People felt the service adapted to their changing needs and interests.

Staff identified and responded to risks affecting or posed by community members. When concerns arose, they used MDT meetings and community meetings to discuss, escalate, and resolve issues, and they made sure people accessed any additional support they needed, such as mental health or physical health services.

During our assessment, we saw how staff and community members used group discussions to calm and support a person who disagreed with a decision. The group helped maintain respect, dignity, and safety throughout the meeting.

Community members and staff could challenge each other appropriately if behaviour was not in line with expectations. When someone did not follow the rules, this was addressed privately to ensure they understood the expectations and how their behaviour related to them. Community members feedback in the community group was that disagreements were resolved quickly, sensitively and remained within the group setting.

When extra risks were identified, staff completed additional risk assessments and put reasonable adjustments in place to keep all community members safe. Feedback from the GP specialist was the service did not complete many medical detoxification episodes, but people who had completed them then had positive experiences as they were supported by the community. Feedback from community members and the GP specialist about having a registered nurse employed on site was positive. The registered nurse provided timely assessment of community members which supported quicker access to assessment by people’s GP or local health services.

The service also trialled access to a family and loved ones accessing mutual and emotional support’ (FLAMES) group. This group was run by the organisation’s residential substance misuse service. In the Wirral, the service had piloted a FLAMES group, designed to support families, friends, and loved ones of people accessing drug and alcohol recovery services. The group provided a safe space for families to share experiences, receive emotional support, and support one another in coping with the effects of a loved one’s addiction. The group ran at least monthly at the residential service and formed part of the organisation’s wider trauma‑informed and psychosocial support offer. Families' feedback included how the FLAMES group had helped families to understand their family members addiction and seen improvement in their family members health and wellbeing. Family members described the service as ‘going the extra mile’, giving families ‘hope’ and despite occasional lapses helping community members to ‘develop the tools to stay clean’.

Families were able to access a family therapist through external referral. This helped improve treatment outcomes by supporting families to understand addiction and giving them skills to help their family member’s recovery.

Community members had access to external one-to-one counselling specialising in sexual abuse and grief/bereavement from rape and sexual assault (RASA) counselling service.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and was good at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they were very positive about working in the service. They spoke highly of the support they received from the deputy manager, registered manager, the sustainable recovery team manager, and senior leaders. They felt respected, valued, and well supported by the leadership team.

Staff also said they had access to support for their physical and emotional wellbeing. Sickness levels over the past year were low at around 2%, and there was a collaborative approach to covering work when needed. Staff were able to access supervision and appraisals, and reasonable adjustments were made where required. For example, neurodivergent staff had adjustments to their workloads and schedules so they could carry out their roles effectively.

Staff with lived experience were encouraged to access extra training and were supported to progress in their careers. Many had moved through the programme into peer support, voluntary roles, or leadership positions through coaching, mentoring, and shadowing opportunities. The provider’s training programme helped staff build skills and supported a sustainable workforce through a “grow your own” approach, for example, staff successfully progressing into peer support roles within the SRT.

Volunteers with lived experience of addiction and recovery were also encouraged and supported to access formal training. They provided valuable support and role modelling for current community members.

There was an organisational wellbeing offer to support staff, which included an employee assistance programme, eye tests and discounts, subscriptions to professional bodies and loans to support travel. Community members also provided feedback on staff performance, as well as the team being recognised in the providers annual report.