Phoenix Futures Wirral Residential 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 people’s needs.

This key question has been rated good, this meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Staff managed access and flow well. The design, layout, and furnishings of the service’s premises supported community members’ recovery, treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported people with activities outside the service, such as voluntary work, physical health, education and family relationships. The service met the needs of all community members, including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped people with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

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 as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service was good 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.

Staff made reasonable adjustments wherever possible to meet the needs of community members. They worked closely with individuals, their families, and relevant specialists to support planning and decision‑making. This included liaising with people’s GPs and local services and ensuring referrals for health and social care assessments were made promptly.

When additional support needs were identified, staff responded quickly and added this support into the community member’s individual programme where possible. For example, people could access specialist addiction services to gain support and learn skills to manage their addiction.

Staff took individual learning styles and needs into account. This included providing extra support for people with dyslexia or difficulties with reading or numeracy, such as buddy support to help complete assignments. The programme also used diverse types of activities, such as art therapy, to reduce reliance on written work.

The service also agreed to admit people while they were waiting for funding approval from commissioners, so they could access the programme without unnecessary delay.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had a good 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.

Staff used creative and individual approaches to involve community members, their families, and other carers in care and support planning. This meant people were able to have a say in decisions, were consulted, listened to, and felt valued and empowered. Confidential information was only shared with a community member’s consent.

The service had a rule that community members could not leave the service unaccompanied during the early stage of treatment. After this period, weekend family visits were supported to help maintain important relationships. Community members were able to use their mobile phones in the evenings once they had completed their daily activities and groups, and a phone was also available on site if needed.

Staff supported community members to attend their chosen places of worship when requested. People were encouraged to be open, respectful, and accepting of each other’s social, religious, and ethnic identities.

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 followed the correct procedures and informed relevant external organisations when incidents occurred. Clear policies and guidance were in place to support staff in managing these situations.

Community members were given an induction handbook when they were admitted, which explained what was expected of them, what care and treatment they would receive, and information about service policies, health, and safety. The handbook was being updated to reflect planned changes to the service, such as relocating the dog kennels and developing a dog grooming service.

Commissioners were kept informed through regular quarterly reports, which helped maintain effective communication. Feedback showed that commissioners received clear information about risk assessments before admission, people’s progress, and discharge planning, helping to support a smooth return to independent living. The service also involved people with lived experience as community representatives through the organisation who actively contributed to the development of the service.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. They openly encouraged people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. They actively involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Over the last 12 months, the service received 4 formal complaints. All were handled appropriately, with learning identified and improvements made. For example, the service increased dedicated mental health support from the local NHS Trust for people with known mental health needs. When complaints could not be resolved to someone’s satisfaction, staff supported community members to take their concerns to the Ombudsman. One community member was advised to seek resolution from the Ombudsmen, and the service did not know if this option was progressed by the person.

Community members were able to give feedback on the service. Suggestion boxes were available in communal areas for anonymous comments, and the service used a “You Said, We Did” approach to show how feedback had led to changes. Community members told us changes to the menus, activities and plans for the refurbishment had been discussed in community meetings, and minutes of community meetings were available to clarify actions had been followed up.

Community members told us they were able to feedback on treatment models through co-production groups, and their lived experience was represented and as part of the provider work plan. This work contributed towards the move on process for people leaving residential services and development of the SRT.

Staff encouraged people to share concerns informally and responded quickly when issues were raised. Staff understood how to manage complaints properly, and there was a clear policy in place for investigating and responding to them. Community members using the service told us they knew how to make a complaint, and that the service addressed minor issues when they were raised. The service tracked actions taken in response to feedback using a “You Said, We Did” approach.

The provider survey for 2025 had a 57% response rates from adults in residential substance misuse recovery services. Feedback from Wirral participants was motivations for maintaining recovery and the most common response was improving mental health. Community members reported the most positive difference to their recovery was their key worker in supporting improvements in emotional and physical wellbeing, regaining a sense of purpose and self-confidence, and receiving structured support in setting achievable goals.

Community members told us they were consistently involved in decisions about their care and treatment. This included decisions as members of the therapeutic community, their care plans and changes to the service. Community members provided us with examples of how they were involved in enhancing the therapeutic activities offer at the service and in the local community. Examples shared was contacting a male suicide prevention support network to promote men’s health. Community members were provided with the local meeting times of the free-to-attend peer-to-peer support group. This offered male community members the opportunity to talk about the stigma surrounding men’s mental health through conversation and develop relationships outside of the service which could support them after discharge.

Community members asked for opportunities to monitor and increase their physical health, and the deputy manager reached out to a regional health improvement programme on behalf of the community. Community members were then advised of an 8-week gym-based programme run in the local community through a national project. This included the use of strength-based exercises, sport equipment and lifting weights. The aim of the programme was to improve cardiac and respiratory output. Community members reported positive impacts upon their health a s a result of the programme and a continued focus on physical fitness.

Community members shared their experience of plans for the relocation of the onsite kennels and plans to provide certificated training on pet grooming and vocational qualifications and outdoor activity days. No pets were cared for at the time of the inspection, but community members feedback was their ideas had been shared regarding the relocation to a quieter area of the service away from neighbouring properties. This would reduce any unintended noise pollution to the local community. In addition, new kennels and washing and grooming facilities were business planned, and links to vocational training were to be established to online and face to face training. Community members had also had outdoor activity days to local and wider places of interest in Cheshire, Merseyside and the Wirral.

Community members families feedback on family support confirmed families were more informed about families, addictions, the impact of trauma and family support.

The service also actively sought feedback at the end of the programme and collected compliments received through feedback forms, thank you cards, and comments from visiting professionals. All feedback was shared with staff to support learning, reflection, and morale. In the last 12 months, the service received 34 compliments from people using the service, visitors, commissioners, stakeholders, and professionals. Feedback highlighted positive progress, new skills gained, and increased confidence. Visitors to open‑day workshops said the programme was insightful and helped them better understand the service and how people were involved in their recovery, particularly through personal recovery stories shared by community members.

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

Staff made sure that people with mobility needs were supported properly and that reasonable adjustments were made so they could take part in the programme. This was discussed during admission to understand what support or changes were needed. The provider’s exclusion criteria did not exclude people based on disability, where reasonable adjustments could be made.

Activities were adapted in a person‑centred way so everyone could take part in a meaningful and enjoyable way, including adjusting physical activities where needed. The service also offered a flexible treatment pathway, based on a full assessment of individual needs, with residential programmes lasting between 12 weeks and 6 months.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to and sought 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 promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. The service collected feedback from community members throughout their rehabilitation, which included several therapeutic activities and promotion of wellbeing and equality which benefitted their recovery.

In 2025, community members using the service took part in Phoenix Futures’ Footprints survey, which looked at people’s experiences over time rather than as one off events. The survey helped the organisation understand changing needs, including experiences of trauma, mental and physical health, access to healthcare, and barriers to treatment. Early findings highlighted the importance of trauma‑informed care, joined‑up health and psychosocial support, and smooth transitions through treatment. These findings reflected the Wirral service’s approach and helped to make sure care continued to meet people’s individual needs rather than relying on outdated assumptions. A trained research lead shared the survey findings directly with community members in a dedicated session, giving them the opportunity to reflect on the results, confirm whether they matched their own experiences, and share their views. This meant residents were actively involved in shaping how the learning was understood and used to improve the service, helping to ensure care was fair, inclusive, and responsive to everyone’s needs.

Community members were also involved in the Recovery through Nature (RtN) programme, which was delivered at other organisational services in the same way and followed the same principles. Feedback from community members was spending time in nature reduced stress, improved emotional wellbeing, and supported their mental health through meaningful outdoor activities, help people build confidence, develop skills, feel a sense of achievement, and reduce isolation through teamwork and social connection.

The service also completed post completion evaluations were completed at the end of the community members completing their programme, which were reviewed to identify learning and improvements that could be made to the service.

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.

Staff supported community members to make decisions about their care, treatment, and plans for their future. Clear discharge and exit plans were in place for everyone, including a process to follow if someone left the service unexpectedly.

People using the service told us they were involved in planning their discharge. The service also offered ongoing support through the organisation and local housing associations partners, which helped people who had completed the programme to maintain their recovery and settle back into the community. Community members who had moved into supported housing said this step‑down support was helpful, and they were able to stay in contact with the service and SRT and return for additional support if needed.

Planning for future care was based on each community member’s choices. Care plans were realistic, meaningful, and focused on supporting people once they were discharged from the service. Staff also made sure referrals were coordinated so individuals were linked to appropriate services in a timely way.