Phoenix Futures Wirral Residential 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.

This key question has been rated outstanding. This meant service leadership was exceptional and distinctive. Leaders and the service culture they created drove and improved high-quality, person-centred care.

There was strong and effective leadership throughout the service. Staff were incredibly positive about the service, managers and the culture, they were encouraged to feedback to managers on suggestions, ideas and innovation, and action was taken on feedback and concerns that staff raised. Managers had an exceptional understanding of the service, the challenges they faced and were effective in addressing these challenges. The service was focused on continuous learning and shared this learning across local systems. Staff were committed to creating an inclusive environment, working to address the barriers that veterans face and improve outcomes for the client group.

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 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had a shared vision, strategy, and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff told us that service leaders were visible, approachable, and supportive, which helped create a positive and open working culture. The service’s vision and values were clearly reflected in how care and treatment were delivered and were central to everyday practice.

Managers involved staff in decisions about the service and encouraged them to share feedback. Staff were motivated, proud to work at the service, and worked well together and with external partners offering community substance misuse support to provide high‑quality care. They understood the needs of the people using the service and actively advocated for them within the wider system.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had exceptionally 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 always did so with integrity, openness, and honesty.

Leaders had a strong understanding of the service and the people it supported. Senior leaders worked closely with staff and were regularly present on site, making them easy for both staff and community members to approach and helping to keep communication open. We observed examples of positive relationships between leaders and community members, demonstrating familiarity with current community members, who had completed the programme and been employed as staff, and volunteers.

Community members and staff feedback was that leadership of the service was consistent and community members and staff had positive relationships, with the registered service manager, head of operations and regional manager who attended the service regularly. Community members described leaders as approachable, and accessible to listen to their feedback and the quality of care and support was consistent. In interviews with the registered manager, SRT manager and staff leaders were described as listening to staff and community members ideas. Feedback from staff was they felt empowered to drive improvements at the service, which resulted in better experiences for community members increasing their chances of completing the treatment programme and making positive changes in their lives.

Staff told us they felt well supported and confident raising concerns or asking for help when needed, had constructive engagement with leaders, and they were motivated and proud to work at the service.

An open and inclusive culture was supported through regular team meetings, supervision and appraisal. Staff development was encouraged and monitored through direct observation and team‑building activities, which gave staff opportunities to share feedback and discuss improvements. Staff were encouraged and supported to access training to expand the range of therapies available.

The service ensured community members’ views were reflected in care records and acted on, using a “You said, we did” approach. Community members were also involved in staff recruitment, including interview panels, to help ensure staff were suitable for the therapeutic community service model. Examples shared by community members were supported to construct and ask questions and their feedback contributed to staff appointments. In addition, community meeting feedback included a range of actions taken from community members feedback, including nature activities, further education, choosing the colours of the décor for refurbishment, additional activities at weekends and changes to menus.

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 clear policies in place to support whistleblowing and explain how concerns would be investigated. Staff told us they felt confident raising concerns and said managers were approachable, open, and available to talk. There was a culture of openness and honesty within the service.

Staff were encouraged to share feedback in team meetings and supervision sessions, or to speak directly with senior managers through an open‑door approach. Feedback from staff was taken seriously and used to make improvements to how the service operated and to the working environment.

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

The service had clear policies in place to promote equality, diversity, and systems to monitor how these were followed. Managers told us they made reasonable adjustments when needed to support staff and people using the service. This inclusive approach was also reflected in recruitment practices, helping to ensure fairness and equal opportunity for everyone.

Staff training included equality and diversity training with staff achieving an 86% completion rate. The service had an anti-stigma approach to make sure staff were respectful in using the right gender pronouns for people from the LGBT+ community. This supported the providers approach to psychological safety for community members and staff. Organisationally staff could access equality networks for staff from the global majority and LGBT+ community.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver high-quality, sustainable care, treatment, and support. They always act on the best information about risk, performance, and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

Governance arrangements were clear, coherent and continuously tested, enabling effective decision making, accountability and delivery of the service’s strategy. The service and regional manager regularly attended the service to monitor the governance processes and provide strong oversight and formed a strong management team. Governance was well embedded and had a clear purpose in the day‑to‑day running of the service. There were clear systems in place to monitor performance and manage risk, which led to clear and measurable improvements in quality. The registered manager had authority to make changes to the service, supported by the service and regional manager. The senior management team had good oversight of staff training, supervision, appraisals, and multidisciplinary working. Regular audits of care records were carried out to make sure assessments and treatment met required standards, and learning from these audits was shared with staff. The service also provided regular quarterly reports to external partners and funders, supporting transparency and effective partnership working. The service demonstrated a learning-focused governance culture, where insight from staff, community members and partners informed action and improvement. Feedback from partners was governance of partnerships, joint working arrangements and shared services was mature, with clear shared objectives.

Care records were clear, detailed, and well organised. Risks were clearly identified, with actions in place to reduce them, and discharge planning was built into assessments from the start. The service had developed a risk register that was maintained and reviewed regularly as planned work to the buildings and estate commenced. Managers understood the main risks to the service and could clearly explain how these were being managed.

Staffing and recruitment had been identified as a risk, and effective action had been taken so the service was fully staffed. The service had innovative plans in place to address bank and occasional agency coverage on shifts through further staff development, offering training and progression into therapy and administrative roles. The introduction of waking night staff had reduced the need for agency staff. Information governance arrangements ensured people’s records were kept confidential and secure, and staff had the equipment and IT systems they needed to do their jobs effectively

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.

Leaders worked closely and regularly with external partners, and feedback from these organisations was incredibly positive, recognising the value of the service. Strong partnerships with charities, community groups, substance misuse community-based services, commissioners, local authorities and local NHS services and local businesses helped people access a wider range of therapeutic activities, including gym‑based and outdoor therapies.

The service was seen as a model of good practice and a benchmark for quality care and support and shared its expertise with other organisations through events such as service open days, where treatment approaches and lived experiences were shared with other services and care was based on an understanding of trauma, reflective practice and structured daily routines which helped people feel more emotionally stable and supported their wellbeing. Strong, respectful relationships between staff and community members were central to recovery, helping people feel understood and valued. The service also used research and evidence to show what worked well and to continuously improve how care and support were delivered.

The service actively took part in organisation‑wide research and learning, including safeguarding studies and national conferences, and used this learning to improve local practice. Staff contributed openly to discussions about multi‑agency working and helped shape improvements across the organisation. The service also worked with local authorities and housing providers to develop step‑down and supported accommodation, helping people stay connected to the service and successfully reintegrate into the community after completing treatment.

Feedback from partners included other substance misuse services, local authorities and ICB’s. Feedback stated that the service regularly completed joint assessments during the referral process. Partners received feedback throughout community members placement, and details of discharge planning back into the community, helping people to make a smooth transition back into their community and to locally based healthcare services.

The service team were described as respectful and took a trauma informed approach with community members. Leaders were described as professional, courteous, and able to build positive relationship with community members. Feedback from community members was described as positive with partners stating positive feedback was consistent about people who had used the service.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They always encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome, and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Phoenix Futures Wirral had an established, trained research lead who played a significant role in connecting organisational research with day-to-day residential practice and community members experience.

Through a structured programme of regular research sessions involving community members. A Liverpool university undertook a research project based at the service which was published in 2025 following a researcher living at the service as part of the community. The researcher worked closely with community members and staff to link research directly to day‑to‑day care. Research activity was built into the life of the service through regular community member sessions, helping people understand research, their rights, and how evidence was used to improve treatment. Community members were actively involved in shaping research projects, including how studies were explained, how consent was gained, and how findings would be shared.

Community members were genuine partners in learning, not just participating. The service also contributed to national research and evidence gathering on emerging drug trends, using both staff expertise and lived experience to inform safer practice.

Findings from research, surveys, and national studies were shared with community members and staff and used to improve care, strengthen harm‑reduction work, and adapt services to changing needs. This approach created a culture of openness, reflection, and continuous improvement, where people’s voices helped shape how the service developed and delivered care.

The service continued to participate in the refining of the provider drug related death strategy in reducing harm focused on addressing the psychosocial drivers of harm and further developed harm reduction initiatives that were relevant to community members lives and personal circumstances. An example of this was adapting staff training and information for community members on changes in drug trend, the rise in substances contaminated with Nitazenes and increase in alcohol related harm. Key sources of information were reviewing serious incidents and deaths, identifying learning and taking preventative action by sharing good practice. The service continued to make sure community members had access to a lifesaving medicine that rapidly reversed an opioid overdose and displacing drugs like heroin, fentanyl, or prescription painkillers and restoring normal breathing in minutes. This was to respond to increases in drug related deaths through the poisoning of other substances with synthetic opiates.