Phoenix Healthcare

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Requires improvement: This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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 were at the centre of their care.

People and relatives told us regular carers understood their preferences and delivered care in a way that mattered to them; however, this was not always the case when different or agency staff attended.

Care plans included person‑centred information about people’s preferences and how they wished to be supported. However, there were gaps in reviews, and when changes were identified there was no evidence these had been implemented.

Daily care records were often brief and did not always reflect people’s individual preferences, routines or how their care was delivered that day.

People did not always experience coordinated or continuous care, and systems designed to support reliable provision were not effective.

Rotas showed inconsistent staffing patterns, with frequent changes in staff and high use of agency staff.

Records relating to delivery of planned calls were held on paper, and a basic app that did not provide accurate real‑time monitoring which made it difficult for the provider to monitor visits in real time or identify emerging patterns such as delays, missed calls, or repeated changes of staff. In several cases, visits were missed, and relatives had to step in to provide care.

The provider recently implemented an electronic care management and call monitoring system, which had the potential to improve oversight. We will review the success of this system during the next inspection.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate or up‑to‑date information in formats tailored to people’s individual needs.

While people and their families told us they were involved in their care plans and felt the information they received was suitable, the provider did not provide evidence of using accessible formats such as large‑print documents, easy‑read materials, or other personalised communication supports. This limited assurance that information was consistently accessible for everyone who needed adjustments.

The provider did not consistently listen to or involve people in decisions about their care.

People and relatives told us individual care workers were kind and willing to listen. However, this was not consistently reflected in how the provider gathered, recorded, or acted upon people’s views.

Some complaints had been investigated; however, people and relatives told us the outcomes were not always shared with them, and there was no evidence of lessons learned. One person told us, I have raised concerns, but it didn’t go anywhere and no one got back to me.”

Surveys were sent to people and families, but these had not been analysed. This meant the provider was unable to identify themes or act on concerns raised through this feedback.

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People and relatives told us the support they received was inconsistent, as they were often unsure whether staff would arrive on time or attend at all. People also reported concerns about the high use of agency staff, which affected continuity and reliability. Gaps in systems and processes meant there was a risk people did not receive equitable access to services, particularly when needs changed or when staffing pressures occurred.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Several permanent staff had recently left the service; people told us they were supported by unfamiliar carers and agency workers covering proportion of visits. People and relatives told us they had to repeatedly explain their routines to new staff, as this knowledge was not consistently captured or shared.

One person told us they were unable to attend a scheduled appointment because only one care worker arrived when two were required for their safe support. This demonstrated staffing changes, lack of continuity directly impacted people’s experiences and limited their ability to achieve positive outcomes.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Conversations had taken place with relatives and people using the service about their future wishes; however, at the time of the discussion they did not want to explore these plans further.