Phoenix Futures Wirral Residential Service

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment, and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on the best available evidence.

This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

Staff assessed each community member’s physical and mental health when they were admitted. They created individual care plans, which were discussed regularly by the multidisciplinary team and updated when needed. Staff offered a range of therapeutic and talking therapies based on national guidance and best practice. The service either included or had access to all the specialist support required to meet people’s needs.

Community members stayed in contact with their local NHS services but were also registered with a local GP while using the service. External community substance misuse services and partner organisations provided extra activities that community members could take part in.

Staff also advocated for community members during the admission process, helping them secure funding so they could start the rehabilitation programme without delay, while offering supportive and empathetic guidance throughout.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by thoroughly assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them.

We reviewed the care records of 5 community members during the assessment. As part of the pre‑admission process, the assessment team reviewed the referral information and, if it was complete and appropriate, arranged a face‑to‑face assessment with the person and any professionals or support people involved with them. Admissions were supported by staff who were either graduates of the programme or had previous experience working in substance misuse services. Community members told us this helped them engage with the assessment, as staff could give detailed information about the programme and therapeutic community from personal experience. They said this made the process less stressful and helped them feel more confident about joining the programme.

Assessments were thorough and covered the person’s substance misuse history, mental and physical health needs, and social circumstances. Care records were of a high quality, with clear examples they had been written with community members, were person specific, individual, reflected community members voices and their own views, aspirations and goals.

Care plans were holistic and focused on recovery. When community members presented with additional risks, staff explored these with them and assessed them appropriately. Staff worked closely with GPs and specialists as part of a multidisciplinary approach to make sure each person received treatment that was meaningful and suited to their needs.

Care plans were reviewed and updated throughout the programme to ensure risks were managed effectively and to reflect each person’s ongoing recovery needs. Feedback from community members where they were constantly involved in reviewing their care plans. Community members shared examples of revisiting previous care plans and using their key worker sessions to reflect on their progress or had returned and used a previous care plan they had created earlier in their recovery to prevent lapsing into using alcohol or drugs. Community members told us they shared their experience of using their care plans in community meetings to help other people understand their recovery journey.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

During the assessment, there was clear evidence that people’s needs were being met in line with current guidance and good practice.

The service provided a wide range of support to help people recover. This included both group and one‑to‑one talking therapies, as well as activities delivered on‑site and in the community. These activities helped community members develop everyday life skills. Staff showed strong commitment to the people they supported and were experienced, well‑trained and enthusiastic. They built their knowledge through lived experience and further training, and they were flexible in offering extra sessions or activities to community members when individual needs were identified. The SRT played a key role, supporting people both in the residential setting and in the community to access meaningful individual activities.

People had good access to physical healthcare. Community members were registered with a local GP who had specialist knowledge of substance misuse and ran regular clinics on site. Staff also supported people to access specialist healthcare services locally or arranged for care to be transferred to services in Wirral or Cheshire when appropriate. This meant people could stay engaged with the programme and avoid the need to travel long distances or stay overnight away from the service.

The service operated on a self‑catering basis, with community members preparing meals for the whole community. The provider promoted healthy eating by sharing clear guidance based on the Eatwell Guide. A screening tool was also used to help identify anyone who may be at risk of an eating disorder and who might need a referral for specialist assessment.

Regular clinical audits were carried out to make sure professional, legal and organisational standards were being met. When good practice or areas for improvement were identified, the service responded promptly. These findings were used to guide staff supervision, training and development, helping to ensure staff were well supported.

Staff received a thorough induction when they moved into peer support roles. Bank and agency staff completed a shorter but comprehensive induction to make sure they understood their responsibilities. Volunteers also completed an induction focused on the service’s values, aims and expectations, as well as how to support people appropriately and recognise safeguarding concerns.

All staff had received an appraisal within the last 12 months, and all staff received regular supervision every 6 to 8 weeks. Staff development and training needs were monitored through an induction workbook, which was tailored to individuals. This process also gave staff the opportunity to share how managers could support their development and personal goals. The service showed a clear commitment to staff wellbeing, including making reasonable adjustments for neurodivergent staff. Supervision and appraisal were monitored, and the service had achieved more than a 90% supervision and appraisal completion.

In addition, therapy staff attended clinical supervision led by an external clinical supervisor, allowing reflective practice and shared learning.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The service held weekly multidisciplinary meeting (MDT) that included all the key staff involved in delivering care. These meetings helped make sure that the wider on‑site teams were kept up to date about what was happening in the service and with individuals, such as progress updates or applications to supported housing.

As part of this assessment, an MDT meeting was observed. Staff showed a good understanding of current community members and those who had completed the programme and had moved into peer support or volunteer roles. The meetings were detailed and well‑structured, and staff from different teams were invited and actively took part in discussions.

Staff felt confident that the MDT meetings worked well for sharing information and problem‑solving. They also said they could easily access support from the senior therapist whenever they needed guidance or advice.

The service also carried out a daily handover involving senior staff, the staff team and waking night staff. This ensured that both the residential team and the SRT were aware of any changes or issues during the day. This helped staff respond more effectively and provide consistent support during evenings and weekends.

The service worked closely with a range of external partners. These included the provider organisation, local authorities, housing associations, and addiction and mental health services across the Wirral. The service also engaged with local authorities and the Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board (ICB) to promote the service and share feedback about how the wider system was working.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice, and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Community members told us they were supported to take part in a wide range of activities that helped them live healthier lives. These included walking, spending time in nature, yoga, swimming and going to the local gym. People spoke positively about these activities and felt they supported their wellbeing.

Community members also said the programme helped them address their substance misuse. They were able to learn ways to manage it and were supported to connect with a wider community, which helped their recovery.

The service had access to a step‑down option through the provider’s supported housing service. This offered drug‑ and alcohol‑free accommodation and life‑skills programmes to help people continue their recovery once they moved on from the main service.

People who completed the programme were encouraged to stay involved through peer support roles, volunteering, and engaging with the local community, helping them build confidence and maintain progress.

Nutrition was an important part of the programme. The service was self‑catered, with community members preparing meals for themselves and for the wider community. This helped people develop cooking and life skills, with opportunities for additional learning when available.

Community members were registered with a local GP and were supported by staff to attend GP appointments, dental appointments and any other health appointments they needed.

We scored the service as 3 the evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service monitored community members’ outcomes and responded when improvements were identified.

The service used the ‘Recovery Radar’ tool to track each person’s progress during the programme. This tool helped map someone’s recovery journey by looking at key areas of life such as health, relationships, and daily functioning. It was used both throughout the programme and at the end to measure how much progress people had made.

The service also submitted information to the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS). This national system collected data to monitor how well drug and alcohol services were performing, both locally and across the country.

As part of clinical governance, the service regularly audited case files to check whether recovery plans were personalised, based on each person’s needs, and included their own goals and outcomes.

The service showed strong recovery results. Most community members successfully completed treatment and moved on in a planned and positive way. Between January 2025 and January 2026, there were 127 completed treatment episodes, and 61.4% were successful outcomes. For those who did not finish the full programme, most left through planned transfers to other community treatment services. Unplanned or unexpected drop‑outs were very low at 3%.

When someone left treatment unexpectedly, staff followed them up with their community provider and other professionals to make sure they were safely picked up by the appropriate community team.

Staff also used the AUDIT tool (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test), which is a standard screening tool used to identify alcohol‑related harm.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

When someone joined the service, they were given an induction booklet explaining how the programme worked, what was expected of them, and what their first day would look like. Before admission, staff also held both formal and informal discussions with people to identify and address any barriers that might prevent them from accessing the service.

During the assessment, we reviewed 5 care records which showed that staff considered each person’s capacity to consent as part of the initial assessment.

Discharge planning started early. Every community member had an exit plan from the beginning of their admission, including arrangements for where they would stay if they left the programme unexpectedly. As part of the pre‑admission risk assessment, accommodation was identified either through the provider’s supported housing or a partner organisation, so that no one was left without a safe place to go.

If someone left the programme early in a planned way, staff helped them make referrals to other services and completed an evaluation with them to gather feedback.

Community members told us they were able to share feedback, felt listened to, and that the service responded appropriately when concerns or complaints were raised.