Phoenix Healthcare

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

Effective – 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 best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated

Requires Improvement: This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Several care plans were reviewed and found to be person‑centred, containing clear information about people’s health conditions, preferences and communication needs. Initial assessments were completed before people started using the service, and a relative told us, “The regular staff know [family member] well, and they are comfortable around them.”

However, not all risk assessments and care plans had been updated when people’s needs changed. For example, some documents did not reflect recent changes in people’s health or support requirements which was highlighted during the inspection. The manager took action to correct the gaps once these were brought to their attention.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Staffing instability and a high reliance on agency staff meant people did not always receive care from staff who knew them well enough to deliver safe care and support. Several people told us staff changes affected the quality of care they received. One person told us, “I don’t feel comfortable around the agency staff as they don’t know my needs.”

People and relatives told us it was important to them to have consistent staff supporting them; however, this was not always achieved due to staff not being paid on time and a high number of staff leaving the service.

The overall inconsistency in practice meant the provider could not demonstrate evidence‑based care and treatment was being delivered reliably across the service.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people.

Staff teams and services did not always work well together to support people. Information was not consistently shared, and there were no reliable handover systems in place. Staff told us they often relied on people or their relatives to update them about changes in needs or medication because the office team did not always pass this information on. One person told us, “I have to tell new staff, especially agency staff, how I take my medication.” A relative said, “I have to keep repeating the same information to care staff and agency staff because no one seems to pass it on, and I always have to hand over from the last shift.”

These gaps in communication meant staff did not always have the right information to provide safe or coordinated care.

The provider supported people to manage aspects of their health and wellbeing, but this was not consistent across the service.

Staff described helping people attend appointments, prompting them with medication, and supporting healthy routines. People told us they received support from their regular staff who knew them and encouraged them to stay as independent as possible.

However, this consistency was not sustained because the service relied heavily on agency staff.

Staff did not always have up‑to‑date information about changes in people’s health. Relatives told us they contacted healthcare professionals themselves because they were unsure the service would follow up concerns. One relative told us, “I never know who is in charge there is always someone new in the office, I just liaise directly with the doctor.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive andconsistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider monitored some aspects of people’s care and treatment, some care plans and reviews showed staff had identified changes in people’s needs and taken steps to request for additional support.

However not all care plans contained up‑to‑date information and lacked detail around people’s needs and expectations. There were gaps in monitoring which meant changes in people’s health or wellbeing were sometimes missed. Staff told us they did not always receive updates from the office and asked people or relatives if needs had changed.

Audits and reviews lacked consistency and did not identify trends or areas for improvement.

The provider informed people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering care and treatment.

People told us staff explained what they were doing and checked they were happy for care to proceed. One person told us, “[staff names] always ask for my consent they are very caring.”

Staff described how they sought people’s consent maintaining people’s dignity throughout tasks.

Where people had capacity, staff supported them to make their own decisions about their care. Care plans reflected people’s preferences, and one person told us, “I want to be as independent as I can and [staff members] always support me to do so." Staff told us they encouraged people to remain in control of their daily routines.