You are here

Phoenix House Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 13 May 2014
Date of Publication: 11 June 2014
Inspection Report published 11 June 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 13 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

� Is the service safe?

� Is the service caring?

� Is the service responsive?

� Is the service effective?

� Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on the people we spoke with who used the service, the staff who supported them and from looking at records.

At the time of our inspection 11 people lived at the home. We met six people who lived in the home, five of those people we were able to speak with. We spoke with four relatives and a person from an organistation that spends one to one time with a person who lived at the home. We spoke with three members of staff, the registered manager and the provider.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe with the staff that cared for them. There were procedures in place to keep people safe. Staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had made improvements following out last inspection in November 2013. There were now appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards which applies to care homes. The provider had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.

Is the service effective?

Relatives told us that they were able to see people who lived in the home in private and that visiting times were flexible. They also told us the staff were accommodating and welcoming to visitors.

It was clear from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of the people�s care and support needs and that they knew them well. Staff spoke about people as individuals and we observed that staff listened to people�s views and opinions and acted upon them.

The registered manager told us they were in the process of organising refresher training for staff. This included training such as, infection control and manual handling.

The registered manager was updating the care records which ensured they reflected people�s care needs in detail. The registered manager told us that they were dedicating time to enable them to complete this.

Is the service caring?

We asked people for their opinions about the staff that supported them. What people told us was positive, one person said, �All the staff are lovely�. A relative told us, �They (staff) are always so cheery and smiley�.

People were supported by staff who demonstrated a clear understanding of their needs and preferences. People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff on duty. When we spoke with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported.

We looked at people�s preferences and interests and found that care and support had been provided in accordance with people�s wishes. We saw that the care people received reflected what we read in their care records.

Is the service responsive?

The registered manager was responsive to people�s needs. We saw examples where people were supported to attend hospital appointments when they were required.

People completed a range of activities within the service. People told us they were supported by staff with activities that they enjoyed.

Is the service well-led?

Staff told us the registered manager listened to them. Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. This meant that the registered manager listened to staff views and acted upon them where appropriate.

The registered manager told us that they had sent out questionnaires to the people who lived in the home and their relatives. Where comments had been made these had been acted upon. This meant that the provider had taken appropriate steps to gather people�s views of the running the home and had acted upon them.

The provider had quality assurance systems in place. We saw records that identified shortfalls and the actions that had been taken to address them.