Phoenix Care

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

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

The provider was in breach of legal regulations in relation to consent to care and treatment.

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 ensure people's care and treatment were effective in supporting their health, wellbeing and outcomes. People's needs were not always fully assessed by staff with the appropriate skills, knowledge and experience, records did not consistently demonstrate that care had been comprehensively assessed, completed or regularly reviewed. During the assessment, we reviewed records that had not been completed or had only been partially completed, limiting assurance that people's needs, risks and support requirements had been fully considered and effectively monitored. This meant the provider could not always demonstrate that care and treatment were planned and reviewed in line with people's current needs and preferences.

People and relatives told us they felt involved in discussions about their care and support and had opportunities to contribute to reviews.

The provider did not always ensure care and treatment were planned and delivered using complete and accurate information. Risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing were not always fully assessed or effectively managed. For example, skin integrity assessments were not always completed accurately, resulting in risk ratings that did not reflect people's needs and reducing assurance that appropriate interventions had been identified.

This meant there was a risk that changes in people's needs may not be identified or responded to consistently. However, staff were able to describe how they tailored support to people's individual needs and conditions, including dementia and autism, and people and relatives did not raise concerns about the care they received.

The provider generally worked effectively with other teams and services to support people. We saw that some people had health passports in place. These contained important information to support autistic people and people with learning disabilities or complex needs should they require hospital treatment or admission. The registered manager told us partnership working was effective, and staff regularly communicated with relevant professionals including commissioners and learning disability services, to support people's changing needs.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people and their support networks. People told us staff worked well with other services involved in their care and that they experienced good continuity of care.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff encouraged people to live healthy lives and supported them to access activities that promoted their wellbeing, including attending gyms and making informed choices about maintaining a balanced diet.

People told us staff supported them to maintain their health and wellbeing and encouraged them to be as independent as possible. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's individual preferences and worked with them to access opportunities that promoted healthier lifestyles and improved wellbeing where appropriate.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people's care and treatment to ensure it remained effective and achieved positive outcomes. Care records did not consistently contain clear goals, and where goals had been identified, they were not always completed or reviewed within appropriate timescales.

This meant the provider could not always demonstrate that people's progress, outcomes and changing needs were being effectively monitored and reviewed. As a result, opportunities to identify changes, evaluate the effectiveness of care and make timely improvements to support people's wellbeing may have been missed.

Staff were able to describe how they monitored people's wellbeing, reported changes in needs, and sought advice from healthcare professionals when concerns arose. People and relatives were generally positive about the care received and did not raise concerns about how support was delivered.

The provider did not tell people about their rights around consent or ensure these rights were consistently reflected in records. Consent documentation lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate that valid consent had been obtained and reviewed. Records did not clearly identify what the person had consented to, whilst others had expired and had not been reviewed or renewed. However, staff records demonstrated that verbal consent was routinely sought during care delivery and documented before undertaking some aspects of care and support.

This meant the provider could not always demonstrate that consent arrangements were clearly recorded, reviewed and kept up to date. As a result, there was a risk that people's preferences and decisions were not consistently documented, despite staff taking steps to seek consent in day-to-day practice.