You are here

Phoenix Care & Support Services 24/7 Ltd Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 4 February 2020

About the service

Phoenix Care & Support Services 24/7 Ltd is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. This includes support with personal care, such as assistance with bathing, dressing, eating and medicines. We call this type of service a 'supported living' service. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is to help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care. At the time of the inspection 22 people were receiving a service.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence.

Whilst people using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them. The service didn't always apply the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence. We found some examples of choice and control being restricted. Since the inspection the provider has reviewed their monitoring of the service to ensure people have full choice and control in their homes in the least restrictive way possible.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People's rights to make their own decisions were not always respected. People’s tenancy agreements were not independent of the care provided which restricted their choice and control. We visited one home where there were restrictions in areas of people’s home due to locked doors. Following the inspection, the registered manager told us they had reviewed their tenancy agreements and issued new ones where required.

Although the service was run from the providers office, staff told us they received supervisions and staff meetings at the homes they were working from. The practice of holding meetings for staff in people’s homes does not reflect good practice or the model of supported living.

People told us they received safe support from staff they knew well. However, there was a risk that some people may not always receive the correct numbers of staff to support them’. Some people had the support of a live-in care worker but were also funded for the support of a second care worker to move them safely. There were occasions when only one staff member was on duty, or the second care worker had to be called from their home.

Risk assessments covered care needs such as mobility, their home environment and other individual health conditions. However, they did not always take into consideration the least restrictive option. Staff told us they did not complete incidents and accidents forms but did contact the office if there had been any. This meant there was a risk that any learning which may help prevent reoccurrence may be missed.

People told us they were pleased with their care and that they felt involved in decisions. They had effective caring relationships with staff who provided their care and support. Staff could explain how different support worked for different people.

People were encouraged to remain independent and safe. People and their relatives told us they had good community networks which were personal to them. This included work opportunities, day service and supporting people to use technology to connect with family and friends

Staff were well trained and skilled. They worked with people to overcome challenges and promote their independence. The emphasis of support

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 4 February 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 February 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 February 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 4 February 2020

The service was not alway responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 4 February 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.