Phoenix Care

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.

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

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 were at the centre of decisions about their care and support. Information gathered during the assessment indicated care and support were not always planned and delivered in a consistently person-centred way for all people. This meant the provider could not be assured that people's individual needs, preferences, and choices were consistently reflected in the planning and delivery of their care and support.

However, there were examples of person-centred practice. Some care records contained information about people's preferences and what was important to them. Staff told us care plans included information about people's likes, dislikes, and preferred ways of receiving support. People confirmed staff understood their preferences, with one person told us, "They know my likes and dislikes and how I like things done my way.

The provider understood people’s individual needs and promoted continuity of care through a small team of staff who knew them well. Staff worked closely with families and support networks to provide joined-up care. Relatives spoke positively about the support provided, including the respite it offered, and told us they were involved in care plan reviews and maintained good communication with the manager.

The provider did not always ensure information about the service was available in formats that met people's individual communication needs. For example, information provided by the service did not include accessible formats, such as easy-read versions, and this was not in line with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). This meant people may not always have been able to access important information about the service in a way that was accessible and meaningful to them.

People did not always feel their feedback led to action. One person told us concerns about missed care hours had not been resolved despite discussions with the manager, and we received additional concerns regarding the provider's response to complaints. However, other people spoke positively about the service and told us they had no reason to raise concerns or make a complaint. This meant people's experiences of raising concerns and receiving a response were variable.

The provider ensured people could access the care and support they needed when required, including supporting people whose needs could not be met by other services. People spoke positively about the accessibility of the management team, and one person told us they could always contact the office and receive support when needed. The manager told us an out-of-hours service was available to provide support and advice to staff and people outside normal office hours.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff had completed equality and diversity training, and the provider had policies in place to support inclusive care. People did not raise any concerns about discrimination.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, including their end-of-life wishes. The provider told us they did not routinely discuss end-of-life preferences with people, and records contained limited information about their wishes. It was not always clear whether people had advance care plans, RESPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) forms, or other end-of-life preferences documented, including for one person identified as receiving end-of-life care.

This meant the provider could not be assured that people's future wishes and preferences had been fully explored, recorded, or shared with relevant professionals. However, staff demonstrated a basic understanding of end-of-life care and were able to describe the importance of maintaining people's comfort, dignity and hydration during this stage of life.